Author: James Robertson
Date: 12:08:42 04/19/99
Go up one level in this thread
On April 19, 1999 at 14:59:29, Roberto Waldteufel wrote: >On April 19, 1999 at 14:14:37, James Robertson wrote: > >> >>>I must disagree with you. Firstly, speed is critical for chess. How to get >>>maximum speed? - use hand-optimized assembler. That is NOT lunacy, it is plain >>>common sense. It might be difficult, but if the results are better it certainly >>>does not make it mad. Much of my program is written in assembler, so I shall be >>>expecting a visit from the men in the long white coats soon! >> >>You miss my point. Obviously, it cannot be complete lunacy, as Franz Morsch >>actually did it, and he has one of the most successful programs in the world. I >>was talking tongue in cheek. Several speed-critical functions in my program are >>written in hand-coded assembler too. >> >>But, whatever it is, it cannot be common sense. As far as I know, Fritz and >>Rebel are the only PC programs written in assembler. Both are commercial, and >>apparently, Ed Schroeder had enough of assembler, as he announced he was >>translating his program into C++ (very wise, if you ask me). >> >Well, I guess what I mean is "if you can do it, then it makes sense to". It is >the perfectionist's choice - if you refuse to compromise efficiency under any >circumstances, then assembler it has to be. Yeah... but for me to try to do it, it would be lunacy. :) >Obviously it is much easier to use a >high level language, but the easiest way does not produce the absolute best >performance. It is no surprise to me that the existing assembler chess programs >are among the best. > >>> >>>Second, Visual Basic is more than 20 times slower than the best commercial >Basic >>>compilers >> >>Yes, but I wasn't talking about Basic; I was talking about VB. >> >>>- if you are going to talk about Basic, at least see what a modern >>>efficient (as opposed to virtual anything!) Basic compiler can do. There are >>>Basic compilers now that will compile small, fast executables to run under Win9x >>>and Win NT, and they include a full 32-bit in-line assembler as well - blows the >>>wheels of Visul C, and C++. >> >>The Basic compilers are faster than VC++? I haven't heard this before; perhaps >>you could give me some websites for more information? I am also a good Basic >>programmer, and if it is faster..... >> >>James >> > >Yes, it is faster, and you are not alone in not having heard. Check out the >PowerBasic web site at http://powerbasic.com/ >For 32-bit Windows stuff, you will want either PBDLL or PBCC compilers (I use >both). In my experience, their products are very good. There are some >discussions about PowerBasic speed compared to other compilers on the BBS there >- see for yourself. If you like the Basic language, then these 32-bit Windows >compilers are really great. PBDLL is more general in its use, whereas PBCC is >much easier to use and very much more similar in its syntax to traditional >basics than VB, but only compiles console (ie text) applications, although I did >manage to design a passable chess display with it. With PBDLL you get the full >graphics capabilities of Windows, but you need to know a lot more about the >Windows API. > >The general consensus among programmers who use these compilers as well as other >compilers (like VB, Virtual C and C++) is that PowerBasic is faster, especially >compared to the crawling VB. Compared to straight C the difference is only very >small, but seems to be in Basic's favour. Many of these programmers are people >who use PB at home, but are obliged to use something else at work. > >Best wishes, >Roberto Cool... I'll check this stuff out. I like C++ syntax better, but that may be just because I know it very very well. :) James
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.