OpenEuphoria

1. Euphoria is 3 to 30 times faster than DJGPP! (warning! C code

• Posted by Jack Cat <catjackus at yahoo.com> Jan 08, 2001
• 637 views
• Last edited Jan 09, 2001

I running a NEIL-based app and found it kinda slow.
It sed NEIL's pixel() to flood fill the screen.
I decided to benchmark NEIL's pixel() and found out it
did a few thousand pixels per second in 640*480*16.
I then ran TEST.EXE wich comes with Allegro for DJGPP
and found out Allegro's pixel() routine drew  tens of
thousands of pixels per second. I thought: "Hell!
Another major defeat for Euphoria...".

But later on in the evening, I came accross a site
promoting "the fastest way to draw to the screen in
mode 19 using DJGPP". I looked at the sample program,
and translated it to Euphoria by hand. And guess what?
Interpretted Euphoria is THREE TIMES FASTER THAN
COMPILED DJGPP C! That is, I compiled it with "gcc -o
pix.exe pix.c", wich means no optimisations, but
neighter does the interpreter, so...

But it gets even better!
When I translated this Euphoria program to C using
EC.EXE, and compiled it with DJGPP, it was...hold on..
THIRTY TIMES FASTER THAN C!!!

Don't believe me?
Go ahead! Try it out! Here are the two benchmark
programs written in C, and in Euphoria, and they are
identical in every way.

-------------------Begin C Code "pix.c"---------------
#include <dpmi.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <time.h>
#include <go32.h>
#include <sys/farptr.h>



void set_mode_13h()
{
      __dpmi_regs r;

      r.x.ax = 0x13;
      __dpmi_int(0x10, &r);
}

void putpixel(int x,int y,int color)
{
        _farpokeb(_dos_ds, 0xA0000+y*320+x, color);
}

  void return_to_text_mode()
   {
      __dpmi_regs r;

      r.x.ax = 3;
      __dpmi_int(0x10, &r);
   }

void main()
{
        int t,cnt;
        set_mode_13h();
        t = time(NULL);
        while((t+10) >= time(NULL))
        {
                putpixel(10,10,20);
                cnt++;
        }
        return_to_text_mode();
        printf("%d Pixels Per Second",cnt/10);
}

------------------Begin Euphoria Code
"pix.ex"---------
include machine.e
include graphics.e
include get.e

procedure putpixel(integer x,integer y,integer c)
        poke(#A0000+y*320+x,c)
end procedure


integer cnt
atom t
cnt = 0
if graphics_mode(19) then end if
t = time()
while t+10 >= time() do
        putpixel(10,10,20)
        cnt+=1
end while
printf(1,"%d Pixels Per Second",floor(cnt/10))
if wait_key() then end if
-------------------------------------------------------

Go ahead, copy and paste these sources into files, and
run pix.ex with Euphoria, and pix.c with DJGPP by
typing "gcc -o pix.exe pix.c" on the command line. And
see for yourself. Then, translate pix.ex to C using
EC.EXE and compile it with DJGPP. The speed increased
20 fold.

Am I doing something wrong here, or are these
benchmarks correct?
If they are, I see no reason why Rob can't put
"Euphoria is 3 to 30 times faster than DJGPP in mode
13h!" on his site. Sure DJGPP is better at math and
all, but using the Euphoria translator, this
difference is not so big (when using integer math
there is no difference).

Now let's just get some more features in it and
increase flow control speed a little, and we have the
perfect language.

Mike The Spike

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/