Printable View
For example, I used the following code in vb and got 7.35 seconds uncompiled (would it be faster if it was compiled?).
A = Timer
X = 0
Do
X = X + 1
If X = 5000000 Then Exit Do
Loop
MsgBox Timer - A
I only have access to vb and qb, so if someone with several different languages (c++ in particular) could run some tests like this I would appreciate it. It doesn't really matter how long each one takes, I just wanted to compare the times.
Same code: 3.585938 on my machine*
This code:
took 1.22168. The difference is the VARS are now declared, and not used as Variants, but as the data-types needed for the task.Code:Dim A As Single
Dim X As Long
A = Timer
X = 0
Do
X = X + 1
If X = 5000000 Then Exit Do
Loop
MsgBox Timer - A
Then, same principle, different code:
took 0.2001953. (The big) Difference here is not having to manually increase X and throwing out a decision(if..then..) in the loop.Code:Dim A As Single
Dim X As Long
A = Timer
For X = 0 To 5000000
Next X
MsgBox Timer - A
So my conclusion is:
-- stop looking for other programming languages, VB can be much faster if you just optimize the code. I had a speed increase of 1791,21%!! Which is allmost 20x as fast!
* My Machine (Win 2000 Pro, PIII 550, 256Mb Ram)
[Edited by RobIII on 09-26-2000 at 09:26 PM]
Oh, also: It would be (or should I say should be) a bit faster after compiling. C++ will be faster (I have it but am not in the mood to boot it up ;) ) if I'd had to guess. If you need absolute speed, try using ASM (Assembler).
Check this out
Original code 7.90625 sec
Declared code 2.96875
Modified code 0.60156
Compiled modified code 0.10937
Okay, Okay. It is cool how you can modify the code and get that kind of speed increase. Thanks for that info, I really hadn't known it. However, the purpose I put up this thread was to find out how the different languages compare with the same code, not how one language's speed can change with different code.
Its hard to say. VB is slow, Java is slower, C++ is fast, ASM is faster. Not much else to it.
As for hard numbers, I have no clue. Try AltaVista.
What's ASM?
ASM is assembler langage. Most probably Intel assembler language if you're working in pcs. It's very low level, you work directly with the memory and registers of the pc (hence the speed), it looks like this kind of thing:
MOV AX, BX 'moves one register to another
POP AX 'pop the stack onto register AX,
etc etc, it's been about 2 years since i've programmed it. It's very low level and is the kind of thing that your normal vb code eventually gets compiled into, like your vb program will get compiled into a whole heap of statements that do things with moving the registers, popping and pushing the stack, accessing memory locations etc etc.
Short answer: Assembly language, very low level, very fast
krah,
Your question about what speed each programming language can run the same code is not answerable (except with what mlewis said about the generic speed of each language). The reason is because each language works differently and therefore the code would have to be different for each, making the test invalid. Look at d.paulson's results with the SAME language with oh-so-slight variations in the code, from 7.9 seconds to only .1 seconds! And that's just with small variations in the same language. Measuring the results with similar code in, say C++, wouldn't have any meaning because the the code and method of execution would vary even more and give you even more wild results. And each of these:
X = X + 1
or
X += 1
or
X++
or
++X
will probably all run at different speeds.
So direct comparison is impossible, or at least meaningless. Except by saying what mlewis basically said, similar fully optimized code in each of those languages will probably run at the speeds he stated.
-JoeyCode
Yeah you're right, it was a flimsy thread to begin with. Mostly I was thinking of graphics.
I'll be a little more specific than a For-Next loop: How fast can each language display a 3d moving tunnel at a specific resolution. All I was saying is which language can give you the same output but at the highest speed? I have heard that C++ is faster at this stuff (behind asm, I guess) than qb or vb.
Fo Ex-amplo, this code here will make me a neatzo wormhole effect for a screen saver in qb:
----------------------------------------------------
'This is an attempt at a wormhole illusion. It should start off with a random
'point on the screen. Circles start off at the point and gradually get larger
'and move closer to the middle of the screen. The random point moves slightly
'every once in a while, and the color of the circles could cycle. - Ryan
'Williams, age 15, October 21, 1999.
'--------------Start----------------
Totalcircles = 69
SCREEN 13 '320 * 200, 256 colors (8 bit.)
RANDOMIZE TIMER
'Selecting the random point and setting the color to 10
PointY = INT(RND * 200)
PointX = INT(RND * 320)
Colo = 10
CLS
Adderx = 0
Addery = 0
10
'This is how much size should be added to each circle. A size 201 circle just
'surrounds the entire screen.
Circsizeadd = 201 / Totalcircles
Circstart = 1
Circsize = 1
X = PointX
Y = PointY
20
'This is to test to see if we need to move the circle a little bit due to a
'random point pick.
IF Adderx > 0 AND X < NewPointx THEN PointX = PointX + Adderx
IF Adderx < 0 AND X > NewPointx THEN PointX = PointX + Adderx
IF Addery > 0 AND Y < NewPointy THEN PointY = PointY + Addery
IF Addery < 0 AND Y > NewPointy THEN PointY = PointY + Addery
'If one of the points was moving to a randomly selected point and went to far,
'this would set it where it needed to be.
IF Adderx > 0 AND X > NewPointx THEN PointX = NewPointx
IF Adderx < 0 AND X < NewPointx THEN PointX = NewPointx
IF Addery > 0 AND Y > NewPointy THEN PointY = NewPointy
IF Addery < 0 AND Y < NewPointy THEN PointY = NewPointy
Circnum = 0
'Here we find the Y and X intervals to be able to gradually move to the center
'of the screen.
Yint = (100 - PointY) / Totalcircles
Xint = (160 - PointX) / Totalcircles
DO
'This draws the actual circles.
LOCATE 1, 1
CIRCLE (X, Y), Circsize, Colo
Colo = Colo + 1
'This is saying "If the number of circles made equals the number of circles we
'wanted to make then exit this loop."
IF Circnum = Totalcircles THEN EXIT DO
Circnum = Circnum + 1
IF Colo > 80 THEN Colo = 10
'This gradually moves the circles towards the center of the screen.
X = X + Xint
Y = Y + Yint
'This gradually makes the circles bigger.
Circsize = Circsize + Circsizeadd
'This ends the program if a key if pressed.
IF INKEY$ <> "" THEN PRINT " WORMHOLE by Ryan Williams ": SLEEP 3: END
LOOP
'This alternates the starting side of the circle. 2-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-1 etc.
IF Circstart = 1 THEN Circsize = 2: Circstart = 2: GOTO 30
IF Circstart = 2 THEN Circsize = 3: Circstart = 3: GOTO 30
IF Circstart = 3 THEN Circsize = 4: Circstart = 4: GOTO 30
IF Circstart = 4 THEN Circsize = 5: Circstart = 5: GOTO 30
IF Circstart = 5 THEN Circsize = 6: Circstart = 6: GOTO 30
IF Circstart = 6 THEN Circsize = 7: Circstart = 7: GOTO 30
IF Circstart = 7 THEN Circsize = 8: Circstart = 8: GOTO 30
IF Circstart = 8 THEN Circsize = 1: Circstart = 1: GOTO 30
30
'This resets the counter.
Circnum = 0
'This gives us a 1/20 chance of changing to a new random point.
Change = INT(RND * 20)
IF Change = 0 THEN GOTO 40
GOTO 50
40
'This selects a new random point. The x point = newpointx and the y point =
'newpointy.
NewPointx = INT(RND * 320)
NewPointy = INT(RND * 200)
'Adderx and Addery are simply used to smooth the motion of the wormhole from
'one point to another instead of an instantaneous flash from one to the next.
IF PointX < NewPointx THEN Adderx = 5
IF PointX > NewPointx THEN Adderx = -5
IF PointY < NewPointy THEN Addery = 5
IF PointY > NewPointy THEN Addery = -5
50
X = PointX
Y = PointY
GOTO 20
--------------------------------------------------------
How's DAT for specific! And it's a darn good thing I put it allllll there or else you wouldn't understand my example.
This is me-
"
Wow. That's pretty cool.
I'm hungry.
Hey wait a minute. You know what would be cool?
No Ryan, what?
Well Ryan, this thing would be really awesome in 800 * 600.
But I don't know how to do 800 * 600 resolution in qb.
Can it even BE done?
I don't know self, but I know how to do it in vb.
But hey- isn't vb slow at graphics?
Yeah, I think so.
I'd copy the code and try for myself but that would take up so much time!
Yeah, you're right.
So what do we, or uh, I, do?
Well, let's put it in C++.
Helllllllo, I don't know any c++ outside of dos-looking stuff.
Oh yeah. Hummm.
Man I'm hungry.
I wish I could see it in c++ at 800 * 600. That would most definitely be cool.
I know, I totally agree with you.
Are you sure you don't want to make it in vb? Because that would be easier than posting a question at the vb-world.net forums that no one would understand because you would word it all wrong and never actually ask for what you want until it was too late?
Shut up b*tch and go make me a samich!
"
WHAT IS THE PPPPPOOOOOOTTTTTTEEEEEENNNNNTTTTTTIIIIIIAAAAAALLLLLLLL OF THE LANGUAGE????
[Edited by krah on 09-27-2000 at 10:03 PM]
The order of speed:
1) ASM (Assembler)
2) C(++)
3) VBasic
4) Java
ASM will always be #1, the rest may vary (in the (near) future).
The reason for ASM being #1 is simple: You are in COMPLETE and UTTER control. The processor (and GFX chips, memory etc..) will do EXACTLY as you tell them. ie. when you tell the CPU (processor) to move some memory it won't check if the adress is valid or anything like UBounds of arrays or so UNLESS you tell it to. C++ and other "High-level" languages will add some error checking routines around everything etc... They will also check for additional parameters of functions and make sure you don't crash your pipelines etc. That's the biggest difference in the LOW and HIGH level languages.
The method of compiling and the compiler itself will also tribute to the speed of your app. So for example if you compile your C(++) app in compiler A it could vary in speed with Compiler B (or C ;) ).
Also in my personal opinion I think the best way to squeeze all the performance out of your PC in any language is to just overlook your code a few times (on paper if you have to) to optimize loops, access to variables, type declarations, memory management etc... This will always (at least the first 2 or 3 times you look it over) improve the quality and speed of the code.
A good tip for VB: Make sure you always use "Option Explicit". This has 2 advanyages:
1) You won't be able to mis-type a variable's name and therefore be less error-prone.
2) VB will know what the best "low-level"-routine to compile your VB-routine to, to improve speed and optimize memory usage (and caching and pipelining etc...)
To turn this option on go to Tools->Options and check "Require Variable Declaration".
Now... No more argues about what's best or fastest. I think I've cleared it up for you, haven't I?
Enjoy,
Hi, I want to ask a few questions about C(++)
Mainly, what's the difference between C and C++?
Are there any free C(++) compilers available on the net?
and how do you make an interface in C(++), does it have an IDE just like VB where you can draw the interface?
Thanks in advance!
Oh, and where do Pascal and Delphi fit in the table of speedy programs? ;)
and do they need runtimes?
TIA
Sorry, RobIll, but you are not exactly correct the ASM is "ALWAYS" the fastest. It is always the fastest IF the disc access is not used, or the disc access is handled properly.
Almost any language (including COBOL) will beat out assembly if the process is disk access intensive, and the disk access is not coded properly. Unfortunately, disk access is among the hardest things to do in assembler.
This is the main reason for using "in-line" assembler rather than full program assembler.
DerFarm
The reason for "inline-assembler" is mostly because the developper wants something done by the routine, FAST. Almost anything can be done with any High-level language these days, but when it's speed that matters, that's where assembler kicks in.
And ofcourse even Java can beat Assembler when you're doing something "not properly" in assembler. But the trick is to do it properly. Assmbler is (freely translated) equal to machine code. Compiling can be desribed as "translating the language (usually something very similar to English etc.) to machine code. It's the overhead high-level languages generate that makes code slow.
The downside of assembler is that it is (very) hard to learn, and you need to code a lot of lines before even something simple can be done (like printing a text on the screen). So developing an application takes a lot more time in assembler (and time = money).
I agree, it will be hard, but once you get it right (=properly working) it will kick any languages ass. Is it so hard to understand that also COBOL, PASCAL, VB, C(++), JAVA and ANY other language will get down to machine code eventually? How would the CPU process the commands if it didn't anyway?Quote:
Unfortunately, disk access is among the hardest things to do in assembler
Trust me, I've coded assembler (on Amiga though) for about 5 years, and I (think I/should) know what is fastest...
I think Delphi and Pascal would be between place 3 & 4 or so, but wouldn't really know. Just a guess...
So... Sorry if I sound a little pissed off... I'm not ;)
Hard day of work...
Actually some elements of VB is faster then C++. Take for example, the VB Do loop is actually faster then a C++
Do loop, but VB string commands are slower then C++ string commands.
Since when? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by nkad
the VB Do loop is actually faster then a C++ Do loop
Yes I do agree VB is quite slow. But I hered from many people who preformed speed tests that the VB Do loop was faster then a C++ Do loop.
Well, I'd like to say that all the replies helped me equally, but really Rob's helped the best. It cleared it up quite nicely. To everyone else: Thanks for trying, you'll receive an honorable mention on the way out. Hey rob are those I's or 1's or L's or what in your name? C++ has a slower Do loop? Hummm...doesn't sound like it makes since but I guess it's possible. But WHY??? (Da-nuh-nuhhhhh!)