1. Muhahahaha
------=_NextPart_000_002C_01C00366.8A820C20
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
All these insults flying around. It is sad that only one person can get =
the attention of so many, and not even have anything productive to say. =
It does show your ignorance though. Maybe instead of spending your time =
trashing something you obviously don't care about, you should try =
writing another one of your "Best Selling Commercially Available =
Programs". Or have you done enough of those already?
Here is a perfect example of your "genious":
I decided to try to speed-up a graphics program I was playing with, so I =
downloaded a couple things about ASM, read up on it, and wrote a few ASM =
procedures. To my surprise, the ASM code was slower! Why? Not because I =
am ignorant, and not because ASM sucks. It is because I am not an ASM =
Guru. According to everything I have read about ANY language out there, =
speed is NOT as dependant on the language you use, as it IS on the =
methods you apply with it. That tells me that the more I learn about a =
language, the better I will learn to utilize it, and the result will be =
more efficient code (faster?).
Instead of throwing around insults, why don't you crawl back into your =
dark little hole and keep your mouth shut. I personally would much =
rather see someone post a letter with an idea or an optimization, than =
see you spend your time telling everyone how much you hate Euphoria. I =
think your mentality can be summed up in one line:
"I read some texts on the language and start coding in it to test it's =
speed.... "
Remember, I did the same with ASM. Only I'll bet I read alot more about =
ASM than you did about Euphoria...
------=_NextPart_000_002C_01C00366.8A820C20
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>All these insults flying around. It is =
sad that=20
only one person can get the attention of so many, and not even have =
anything=20
productive to say. It does show your ignorance though. Maybe instead of =
spending=20
your time trashing something you obviously don't care about, you should =
try=20
writing another one of your "Best Selling Commercially Available =
Programs". Or=20
have you done enough of those already?<BR>Here is a perfect example of =
your=20
"genious":</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I decided to try to speed-up a graphics =
program I=20
was playing with, so I downloaded a couple things about ASM, read up on =
it, and=20
wrote a few ASM procedures. To my surprise, the ASM code was slower! =
Why? Not=20
because I am ignorant, and not because ASM sucks. It is because I am not =
an ASM=20
Guru. According to everything I have read about ANY language out there, =
speed is=20
NOT as dependant on the language you use, as it IS on the methods you =
apply with=20
it. That tells me that the more I learn about a language, the better I =
will=20
learn to utilize it, and the result will be more efficient code=20
(faster?).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Instead of throwing around insults, why =
don't you=20
crawl back into your dark little hole and keep your mouth shut. I =
personally=20
would much rather see someone post a letter with an idea or an =
optimization,=20
than see you spend your time telling everyone how much you hate =
Euphoria. I=20
think your mentality can be summed up in one line:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>"I read some texts on the language and =
start coding=20
in it to test it's speed.... "</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Remember, I did the same with ASM. Only =
I'll bet I=20
read alot more about ASM than you did about=20
------=_NextPart_000_002C_01C00366.8A820C20--
2. Re: Muhahahaha
On 11 Aug 2000, at 17:47, Brian Broker wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 07:18:03 -0000, Drake Ice wrote:
>
> >Do not worry, I have no intention to cause flame wars. I am as good as
> >gone.
>
> OK, buh-bye now... thank you for 'enlightening' us all.
>
> -- Brian
>
> PS: I still think Euphoria is sexy...
>
Men, *sigh*
Kat
3. Re: Muhahahaha
> Not exactly. I compiled my code and found there to be a timespan between
the two puts, therefore proving (to me) that the loop actually did run.
No, that just meant there was a time delay. Unless you examined the assembly
file, you (or I) have no idea what exactly is being executed there. That's
half the problem with optimising compilers: you don't always get what you
write. But, be aware that there is some level of optimisation, unless you
turn it all off. Try that, and repeat the test.
Euphoria's support for DX is growing, though it will take time. C/C++ is a
much larger community, after all. I recommend downloading the Exotica
package, as it has a couple of ports from the DX SDK to Euphoria. I was
impressed to find that most run at the same speed, since DX does most of the
work. OpenGL support really is shakey, I agree, but that's comming to.
Instead of slamming the lack of support, you could help instead.
Finally, in regards to transformations, D3DX does do vertex transformations,
once you supply the frame with the matrices (which take no time to
calculate). It's a new part of DX7 that is meant to suplant RM. It doesn't
do world-local coversions, but this is a good thing, since there are many
ways to implement this. Besides, the amount of load for this is small.
4. Re: Muhahahaha
Why do you go and compare Euphoria to industry standard, super commercialized
software like Visual Basic and C/C++? That comparison is meaningless, just like
comparing Perl to C for CGI programming. You cannot fairly compare Euphoria
to a commercial software language.
Besided, Visual Basic is just a over hyped toy that really does not live up all
the talk. C/C++ are *the* most industry standard commercial programming
languages out there. I dont think that is too fair
Your views of Euphoria are biased, do you work for Microsoft by any chance?
--
cense
a member of the
ak-software development team
http://www.ak-software.com/
contract work for
Web Velocity IT inc.
http://www.webvelocity.ca/
5. Re: Muhahahaha
- Posted by Drake Ice <drakeice at FREEZE.COM>
Aug 11, 2000
-
Last edited Aug 12, 2000
On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 01:45:15 -0600 Admiral Deah <deah at HOME.COM> wrote:
>> void doit(int val)
>> {
>> int i;
>> int v;
>> for(i = 0; i < 50000000; i++)
>> v = val;
>> }
>
>In any good compiler (VC++ included), the function doit will be optimised to
>this:
>
>void doit(int val) { }
>
>Why? First the optimiser will unroll the loop (since it is a fixed number of
>iterations), and determine that the 'v=val' assignment has been made
>redundantly, and eliminate 49999999 assignments. Then, since there's no
>loop, 'i' is not needed. finally we just have a 'v=val' function, which
>doesn't return anything, so again, this will get optimised out of existence.
>Finally, during the dead code elimination cycle, the doit() function calls
>will be eliminated completely. Thus you're timing the delay between two
>puts() statements, which really shouldn't be a long time. Try it again, but
>change the function doit to something like this:
>
>int doit(int val) {
> int i, n, v;
>
> // this is how many times we'll loop
> n=val*1000000
>
> // the loop is now a variable, so it's nature
> // is unpredictable, and unrollable
> for(i=0; i<n ; i++)
>
> // the inner function can't do the same thing, it
> // has to be iterative, or it will get moved out of the
> // loop
> v+=i;
>
> // we need to return a value, or the function is useless
> // and may still be optimised out of existence
> return v
>}
Not exactly. I compiled my code and found there to be a timespan between the two
puts, therefore proving (to me) that the loop actually did run.
>And by the way, DirectX does all the time-consuming vertex transformations,
>clipping, etc, and would not be the responsibility of Euphoria. I believe
>the same is true in OpenGL, so your last statement is irrelevant. While the
>interpreter's speed is important for a game, the rendering speed is far more
>important. And in this case would be quite independent of the interpreter's
>speed. Euphoria is fast, and I dare you to test this (and maybe some
>other's, I don't have a C++ compiler installed right now), with timer()
>added to show the actual speed difference. (Actually, this may cause an
>overrun, I'm not sure, perhaps a better test would use floats?)
>
>PS: Recommend reading the "Lava" by Irv Mullins as well
So you state that because Euphoria is so slow, in a video game it needs to have
a C++ program (Direct X) to do the hard work? Even so, Euphoria does not even
support DirectX!
DirectX consists of COM (ActiveX) controls, and Euphoria can not make use of
them directly. The only way Euphoria can call DirectX functions, is by going
through a slow layer of Euphoria Program -> Interpretter -> Exotica -> DirectX
while with C/C++ programs it's just Program -> DirectX. Not to mention that
Euphoria's function calling speed is very slow compared to C or C++'s, thus
meaning that everytime you call upon a Direct X routine to actually render a DX
scene, you are losing frames per second.
AND, if that weren't enough, DirectX most certainly does not do vertex
calculations for you!! Yes there was a time when DirectX had a component called
Direct 3D Retained Mode, a lacking and slow component wich did the vertex
calculations for you, but that component has being stripped out by Microsoft and
they didn't support it anymore after DirectX 6. The only part of Direct X that
involves vertex calcuations, is Direct 3D Immediate Mode today, and it does not
do the calculations for you (otherwise you'd have Retained Mode, see?). So in the
end, all your Matrices wich you pass onto Direct X/3D through Euphoria are going
to be slow, dynamically allocated and garbage collected "sequences", and adding
that to above function calling overhead, I'm happy to say a Euphoria game will
run at half the speed of a C/C++ game in FPS, if not at a tenth of the speed.
(60fps become 6fps!!).
OpenGL requires you to do your own Matrix and vertex handling, thus falling in
the same basket as Direct X. Plus, there exists no Direct X for Linux or DOS,
thus you can't rely on DX anyways, and yet while there is OpenGL for Linux and
DOS for C/C++ programs, Euphoria programs can not use them to this date.
*********************************************
Want free email? Sign up at http://www.freeze.com !
6. Re: Muhahahaha
On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 07:18:03 -0000, Drake Ice wrote:
>Do not worry, I have no intention to cause flame wars. I am as good as
>gone.
OK, buh-bye now... thank you for 'enlightening' us all.
-- Brian
PS: I still think Euphoria is sexy...
7. Re: Muhahahaha
I already know how to program in C, done it in VC++5; and it's not fun, it
takes much more time to do what you want, and it takes like 2 minutes to
compile each time when you want to test your code!
Euphoria is just what i want. When it won't be that anymore, i'll switch to
another language, but i doubt that will happen any time soon.
Tone
8. Re: Muhahahaha
>Euphoria does not even support DirectX!
And why not?! You can access dlls from EU.
Exotica is simply a wrapper dll that SIMPLIFIES DX programming
for those of us who are new to 3d programming.
A trade off of simplicity is inevitably a loss of speed. But
even at that, I hardly notice any lack of speed. You try running
a DX game on a 486. Good luck.
If one has issues with loss of speed. They can code staight from
DX, without using Exotica.
>DirectX consists of COM (ActiveX) controls
Am I wrong in thinking that ActiveX is VB?
> and Euphoria can not make use of them directly. The only way
>Euphoria can call DirectX functions, is by going through a slow
>layer of Euphoria Program -> Interpretter -> Exotica -> DirectX
Exotica is actually an API for C. It has just been ported to
Euphoria.
>while with C/C++ programs it's just Program -> DirectX. Not to
>mention that Euphoria's function calling speed is very slow
>compared to C or C++'s, thus meaning that everytime you call
>upon a Direct X routine to actually render a DX scene, you are
>losing frames per second.
Ahem... Interpreter.. Compiler.. See the difference?
>OpenGL requires you to do your own Matrix and vertex handling,
>thus falling in the same basket as Direct X. Plus, there exists
>no Direct X for Linux or DOS, thus you can't rely on DX
>anyways, and yet while there is OpenGL for Linux and DOS for
>C/C++ programs, Euphoria programs can not use them to this
>date.
<SARCASM>
Shame on RDS!! They haven't coded DirectX for DOS or Linux yet!
What is the matter with those people!? And no 3d Math for
OpenGL!! What is this world coming to when a simple company like
RDS can't even support DX for Dos or Linux!
<END OF SARCASM>
I don't believe that anyone on this list expects to develop a
high performance commercial program wit EU. There are better
tools to suit their needs. Just like I wouldn't use C to write a
batch program.
<ANALOGY>
You wouldn't use a nail gun to build a birdhouse. By the time
you set up your nail gun, I'll have my birdhouse built.
<END OF ANALOGY>
If you're so gullible that you would take what someone says so
literally. You must have major issues with TV commercials.
EU IS free.
I've been using it for over half a year, and I haven't spent a
cent on it. Although I will, because it is worth every dollar,
and more.
EU is fast.
Maybe not in execution, though it's not very lacking. But I can
write a program in EU in a matter of minutes.
Debugged and running. Do that with C. It'll take you just as
long just to compile it once to find out you forgot a semicolon.
Comparing EU to C is like comparing a pickup to a sports car.
A pickup is more practical and a heck of a lot cheaper. You can
use it for everyday uses, and you can fix it yourself. A sports
car is more expensive, with better performance, but is a
9. Re: Muhahahaha
On 12 Aug 2000, at 14:52, chris bensler wrote:
> I don't believe that anyone on this list expects to develop a
> high performance commercial program wit EU. There are better
> tools to suit their needs. Just like I wouldn't use C to write a
> batch program.
Well, i am trying to..... Commercial programs have been written using Prolog and
Lisp
and other Ai languages, why not Eu?
> <ANALOGY>
> You wouldn't use a nail gun to build a birdhouse. By the time
> you set up your nail gun, I'll have my birdhouse built.
> <END OF ANALOGY>
You are not aware there are small nail guns for shooting 3/4inch wire brads?
Kat
