Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/08/31/23:16:27

Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 11:12:01 +0800 (GMT)
From: Orlando Andico <orly AT gibson DOT eee DOT upd DOT edu DOT ph>
To: "Michael L. Smith" <mlsmith AT ktis DOT net>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: OmniBasic benchmark
In-Reply-To: <5u6ro8$>
Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.3.93.970901110458.1380B-100000@gibson>
MIME-Version: 1.0

On Fri, 29 Aug 1997, Michael L. Smith wrote:

> Shane,
> I was not aware what the -03 option did. It looks like Orlando is looking for 
> every advantage he can get. In previous post he accused Omni of using register 
> variables (which it was not) and then using them for himself. Now that I find 
> out what the -03 does, it appears he really wants to stack the deck. What some 
> people may be missing in all this is that we at Omni have a very high regard 
> for both gcc and DJGPP or we wouldn't have invested over a 1000 man-hours into 
> Omni which uses these great resources. The real point of the post was to show 
> that one could obtain respectable speed (compared to C) using OmniBasic which 
> is a higher level language and probably more suited for certain applications 
> and at the same time not give up pointers, portability, etc.

I'm not looking for every advantage I can get or stacking the deck  :)
I was merely pointing out that giving GCC higher levels of optimization
will produce faster code. I don't think it should be _that_ hard to tell
OmniBasic to use -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer and get even faster speeds.

However: I stick by my original premise that a do-nothing loop is
basically braindead as a benchmark. Even BYTE Magazine in the early 1980's
was using the Sieve of Eratosthenes as a Basic benchmark, and NOT a
do-nothing loop.

I am a (somewhat great) fan of Basic, I've used Turbo/Power/Quick/Visual
Basic. And I think it's great that Basic can approach/exceed the speed of
C-compiled code. The reason I shifted to C was because I discovered that
QuickBasic was not quick at all -- about 1/3rd the speed of the old Turbo
C I was using at the time.

I wasn't accusing Omni of anything  :)
(Unless it's offering a crippled version of OmniBasic  :)

I really would consider using it, except how BIG is BIG? I don't want to
start writing a project and find out that it won't compile. Call me
spoiled by free software, but I really don't see any reason to use Basic
if I have to pay a significant amount for it, considering that I can use C
for free :)  I'm not saying that charging for software isn't right. But
I'm perfectly happy with GCC.

BTW: you mentioned that the Linux version of OmniBasic has XForms support. 
I use XForms myself with C/C++. Since OmniBasic is commercial, I presume
you've had to license XForms from Dr Zhao? have you modified the Form
Designer to output Basic code?


Orlando Alcantara Andico
WWW:         Email: orly AT mozcom DOT com
ICBM:  14 30 00 N  120 59 00 E               POTS:  (+632) 932-2385

- Raw text -

  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019