Testing results for Purebasic and Blitzmax...

http://www.codersworkshop.com/viewpost.php?id=61207

I been sorta following it....and I'm still not convinced that PB is all that much faster than BMAX. The syntax alone already reminds me of the long dull days of coding in VB.....

meh to comparing "basic" languages like this...if speed is
your only concern, code everything in C & assembly...
if spectrum basic was reborn with interfaces to opengl & dx..
and it was fast as hell...id still avoid it like the plague..

mmmmm...speccy basic!..10 print"blah":goto 10

That was probably the most pointless program of the 8-bit era... But we all done it! :)

Amstrad CPC:-
10 Print "Press a key"
20 Call &bb18
30 Print "Good eh! :/"
40 End

Dabz

The results on page 4 look like BMax is about twice as fast as Pure for ints; but looking back in the thread I see that floats/doubles seem faster in Pure. Interesting.

wouldnt it be a better test to have particle systems, huge animated meshes and bloom lighting comparisons??

Or this thread....
http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtopic.php?t=20612

Speed is a factor, but functionality is a major concern, too. However both is good(in different concept.... or personal taste.)

I'm not sure how valid the thread is either but it's interesting.
@Wendelm, the floats/doubles speed test is a bit 'off'.
The original tests were run on Bmax 1.12 with manual GC run every cycle. If you read later results you can see that results between PB and Bmax are similar on 1.16/1.18 with auto-GC.

As much as I'd like to follow the fanboi rantings of one with such in-depth knowledge, I just can't be arsed.

I use BMax cos I like the cut of it's jib, not because it's 0.12673 ms faster or slower than the next language when running a nose picking sim.

I'd imagine that PB users feel the same, so what's the point?