Faraday cages ( was Re: staticy plastic tubs )
trixter at oldskool.org
Sun Oct 22 16:38:02 CDT 2006
Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
> Jim Leonard wrote:
>> Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
>>> Jim Leonard wrote:
>>>> I call serious BS on the statement "some interpreters were faster
>>>> than some compilers". People are going to have to back that up with
>>>> actual examples before it becomes believable.
>>> Microsoft QuickBASIC 4.5. Try it with "Gorillas".
>> And what interpreter?
> QuickBASIC 4.5. Compiled programs compiled by QuickBASIC 4.5 is slower
> than interpreted programs run under the QuickBASIC 4.5 interpreter.
I don't have 4.5 but I do have 4.0 so that's what I used and it was
substantially faster compiled, particularly in the graphics routines.
I wasn't sure how I was supposed to use a game as a benchmark, so I did
my own test anyway: I took QB 4.0 on my 5160 and altered SORTDEMO.BAS
to force a uniform reverse-sorted list and remove all arbitrary delays,
and then ran the Exchange Sort demo (has the least amount of screen
drawing; see later). Here are the times in seconds:
QB 4.0, interpreted (not really, it's p-code): 7.141
QB 4.0 compiled, runtime linked in: 6.320
MS-DOS Qbasic 1.1: 9.551
MSDOS Qbasic 1.1 may have had an unfair disadvantage because it had
slower screen draw routines than the others, but all of the sorts that
didn't rely on random variables (insertion, bubble, exchange, shell)
across the board showed that the compiled version was faster by a small
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/
More information about the cctalk