Pro Gaming Tools (why use C?)

ylaporte
Unregistered
 
Post: #16
Quote:Originally posted by wadesworld
Part of the reason Java generated so much hype was "write once, run anywhere." That's why everyone wanted to learn Java. But as we all know, that's probably the least fulfilled promise of Java. Java developers wanting to deploy their applications on multiple platforms spend significant time handling platform-specific issues.

These platform specific issues almost always come up when you are building GUI applications or Applets... When taling about server side stuff, java is very portable without any problems. And for handling any platform specific issues that might come up, a little desing and a good vanilla framework go a long way (that's true for any language). Java saved us recently when the decision was taken to go from AIX as the deployment platform for one of our system's module to windows (long story, I was not part of that decision process, but there were serious reasons). We already were almost two years into the project and didn't have to modify any of our code. Java portability is much better now than it was at first!
Quote:In short, I think Java is often choosen due to its buzzword status, rather than any real technical justification. C++ or Objective C could often be used for the same project without significant differences.
Wade [/b]
The framework that comes built into java is not be ignored, it is often a good start to build your own. Plus, the way java integrates threads in the language is also a great asset. Same goes for introspection, RMI, JDBC(ot only for Biz apps), etc... they can be quite usefull.
By the way, not all bizapps are of the Input-Validate-Write to DB-Report type... There are some interesting ones out there.

Plus java is easier to debug (especially when you have lousy programmers), no pointers, not too many ways to twist the syntax and you have exceptions (Yes I know there are some in the C++ spec... know many people who use then?).

Anyway, my point is that java is more than just a buzzword...
Quote this message in a reply
Nibbie
Posts: 1
Joined: 2010.11
Post: #17
Metal Basic: Really fast dev time, slightly slower runtime but still the fastest basic for mac.
C, C++,C#,Obj C: Great all around languages and as powerful as you could want a language to be. Slightly harder than Basic.
Java: Hell+some to learn, very annoying, buggy, unstable but completely platform independant. Good for web and cross platform programs, not so good for games.
ColdstoneGrin : Bad for anything but PoG, Slow, Buggy, 2 min. dev time, 2 min play timeWink .
Quote this message in a reply
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: 2002.12
Post: #18
Quote:Originally posted by Joseph Duchesne
Metal Basic: Really fast dev time, slightly slower runtime but still the fastest basic for mac.

I did some tests. FutureBASIC turns out to be at least 10 times faster than METAL (Sieve)

FB: 1899 primes found 1000 times in 0.7 seconds
METAL: 1899 primes found 1000 times in 7.902202 seconds

"Programmers are tools for converting caffeine into code."
Quote this message in a reply
Nibbie
Posts: 1
Joined: 2010.11
Post: #19
Wich version of metal? Was FB in 9 and Metal in X? I can't test it myself because I don't have FBSad .
Quote this message in a reply
ZeroCool
Unregistered
 
Post: #20
Quote:I did some tests. FutureBASIC turns out to be at least 10 times faster than METAL (Sieve)

FB: 1899 primes found 1000 times in 0.7 seconds
METAL: 1899 primes found 1000 times in 7.902202 seconds

wow....great tests Rolleyes

You wouldn't happened to have compared REALbasic with either of the two would you?

This is just ignorance on my part but, I think REALbasic is the best Mac BASIC compiler.
I only say this because I couldn't stand METAL and havn't even used FutureBASIC.

not to get off topic, but.......
Ninja <-- what's up with the ninja anyway...it's cool and all but why?
Quote this message in a reply
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: 2002.12
Post: #21
METAL v.173 default settings
FB release 7 using the console runtime compiling for CPU PPC

Both in OS 9.2.2

Here is the METAL code:
Code:
DIM f(8194)

loops = 1000

t = timer

for j = 1 to loops
c = 0
s = 8191
for i = 0 to s
f(i) = 1
next i
for i = 0 to s
if f(i) then
p = i+i+3
if i+p <= s then
for k = i+p to s step p
f(k) = 0
next k
end if
c = c+1
end if
next i
next j
t = timer-t


print c;" primes found";
print loops;" times in";
print t;" seconds"


Here is the FB code:
Code:
register on
dim k,i,j,s,p,c
dim loops
dim t as double
dim f(8194)
register off

loops = 1000
t = fn tickcount
for j = 1 to loops
c = 0
s = 8191
for i = 0 to s
f(i) = 1
next i
for i = 0 to s
long if f(i)
p = i+i+3
long if i+p <= s
for k = i+p to s step p
f(k) = 0
next k
end if
c = c+1
end if
next i
next j
t = fn tickcount-t
print c;" primes found";
print loops;" times in";
print t/60;" seconds"

If you're wondering why there is different code for METAL and FB, in FB you have to declare variables using the "DIM" statement, and instead of an "if" block you use a "LONG IF" block.

P.S. I don't have RB Smile

"Programmers are tools for converting caffeine into code."
Quote this message in a reply
Member
Posts: 749
Joined: 2003.01
Post: #22
Cool No,no, guys that' s all wrong... The fastest basic on the mac is... not metal... not real... not future... but TNT hurray!!!LOL

Another thing: in games, you really dont need much calculations, you need fast graphics, that' s all.Blink Sneaky Bored Shock :envy: ZZZ Wacko Mad Wink
Quote this message in a reply
Quicksilver
Unregistered
 
Post: #23
FB is faster because it is compiled not a runtime.
Quote this message in a reply
Member
Posts: 749
Joined: 2003.01
Post: #24
you gotta point there...:envy: Anyway, is --rb also compiled?
Quote this message in a reply
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: 2002.12
Post: #25
RB is compiled, but from what I hear, has a lot of overhead.

"Programmers are tools for converting caffeine into code."
Quote this message in a reply
Nibbie
Posts: 1
Joined: 2010.11
Post: #26
Quote:Originally posted by Najdorf
Cool No,no, guys that' s all wrong... The fastest basic on the mac is... not metal... not real... not future... but [b]TNT hurray!!!LOL
[/b]

Nope, it's actually the slowest according to seive, actually I think the mac port of qbasic was the slowest.
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply