Real Software Forums

Hello,
Coming from VB6, i decide to migrate to RealBasic, i have already installed RB 2012 in my computer.
Intel Core 2 CPU, 4300@1.8Ghz, 2Gb RAM - OS Windows XP Pack 2.
I have made this test under desktop project as follow:


VB6 code


Result under VB6 X= 2.68798271729777E+43 -- Time= 2.9 Sec after compiling, Time=1.85 Sec
Result under Borland C/C++, X= 2.68798271729777E+43 -- Time= 0.65 Sec with C compiler.
Result under RB 2012, X= 2.68798271729777E+43 -- Time= 3.5 Sec

It seams that Vb6 faster then RealBasic !

Any body can explain me the difference ?
Regards.

Just to clarify, have you compiled the RB code too?

Could you show the actual RB code too?

If you go on with RS, there is a known memory issue with the IDE on Windows XP. Windows 7 would be a better choice as a development machine. This has nothing to do with the lower speed you are reporting, though.

Pixe

please put a

#pragma BackgroundTasks False

first on the top of this test method.

Than build and test again.
(not in debug mode, please)

While RB is not so fast as C, it may still be fast enough.

Greetings
Christian

On my machine... 9.5 seconds run in the IDE, but only 1.3 seconds compiled
This is under OSX... so I can't compare it to VB6... plus my machine may be quite different performance wise from the one in the OP

but above is the RS equivalent of the posted VB6 code.


BTW... This is not a very good "benchmark"..... don't rate RS vs VB on sole this.

and remember.. VB6 is dead (according to microsoft), while RS is alive, and moving forward.

Change the declaration of i from UInt64 to Integer. Time here drops from 1.06 seconds to 0.62 seconds.

Compiled and changing Dim i As uint64 to Integer on this semi-dinosaur of a machine (Core Duo 2.0GHz, 4 GB Ram, Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit and playing Sultans of Swing in the background) the result is 0.973 seconds. Running from the IDE it's on average 8.5 secs.

Apples to apples my friend.

P.S. My machine is faster than Dave's

A little background for VB6 users...RS has built in cooperative threading, so code which loops yields time to the main thread and any other threads running in the background. The pragma above temporarily turns this off.

RS chose a cooperative model for Realbasic threading despite its drawbacks because cooperative threads are far easier to code, test, and debug than preemptive threads.

Yeah I got a dinosaur... but a powerful one still.... a 2006 MacPro... soon to be replaced with a 2013 iMac which benchmarks out like 2.5x faster

EDIT:
HA! actually MINE is faster

changing from UINT64 to INTEGER.. mine ran in 0.75 seconds

Hello,
with
#pragma BackgroundTasks False above:

in IDE, result 9.7 sec instead of 11.9 sec
Compiled, gives 1.2 sec, better then Vb6!

Thank you.

When your code is not fast enough the solution is to spec a faster computer.

Hello,



Mantissa
Using str(x), we get X= 2.687983e+43 instead of X= 2.68798271729777E+43 with VB6 an C

How can i display a same mantissa as VB6 ?

Regards.

use FORMAT not STR

Ouch. But true..
This is why a Windows 3.1 installation could be backed-up up on a floppy disc,
and also why my 2.4Ghz with 4Gb RAM machines don't feel any faster than my 25Mhz 486 with 4Mb RAM did in 1992.

I have already used Format but i lose scientific notation.

Regards

Maybe you try FormatMBS in our plugins?

for example:

dim d as Double = 123.4567890
listbox1.AddRow FormatMBS("%f", d)
listbox1.AddRow FormatMBS("%e", d)
listbox1.AddRow FormatMBS("%g", d)

listbox1.AddRow FormatMBS("%5.5f", d)
listbox1.AddRow FormatMBS("%5.5e", d)
listbox1.AddRow FormatMBS("%5.5g", d)

d = 0.000000123456
listbox1.AddRow FormatMBS("%f", d)
listbox1.AddRow FormatMBS("%e", d)
listbox1.AddRow FormatMBS("%g", d)

listbox1.AddRow FormatMBS("%5.5f", d)
listbox1.AddRow FormatMBS("%5.5e", d)
listbox1.AddRow FormatMBS("%5.5g", d)

gives this output:

123.456789
1.234568e+02
123.457
123.45679
1.23457e+02
123.46
0.000000
1.234560e-07
1.23456e-07
0.00000
1.23456e-07
1.2346e-07

so you can have various styles.

Greetings
Christian