Author: Roberto Waldteufel
Date: 12:42:16 04/19/99
Go up one level in this thread
On April 19, 1999 at 15:08:42, James Robertson wrote: >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 Yes, once you get used to something it is always easier than something new. However, if you give PB a try I doubt you will be disappointed.
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.