Olaf - I've converted your mandelbrot app
in [VB.NET]
|
From: Armin Zingler on 4 Oct 2009 11:01 mayayana schrieb: > Beg your pardon?! I have *never* maligned .Net > people who post in the VB6 group. People > end up posting in the VB group because Microsoft > has deliberately caused confusion as part of their > marketing. They started out with VB and added .Net. > Then they dropped the ".Net" from VB.Net and started > calling it VB. People can argue all day that VB.Net is > the next version of VB, but when the dust settles, > it's simply a lie. VB is for compiled Windows software. > VB.Net is a Java clone, with different strengths. That's a lie! The only true VB version is VBDOS 1.0! VB6 is _not_ Visual Basic! The manufacturer just pretends that but it's not true. -- Armin
From: mayayana on 4 Oct 2009 11:25 > That's a lie! The only true VB version is VBDOS 1.0! > VB6 is _not_ Visual Basic! The manufacturer just > pretends that but it's not true. > I suppose you think that's very funny, but if you actually read my post you'll see that I'm talking about an entirely practical issue, not a religious or semantic dogma. Fighting over whether MS "has a right" to name their products as they like is a red herring issue.
From: Tom Shelton on 4 Oct 2009 11:28 On 2009-10-04, mayayana <mayaXXyana(a)rcXXn.com> wrote: > > >> That's a lie! The only true VB version is VBDOS 1.0! >> VB6 is _not_ Visual Basic! The manufacturer just >> pretends that but it's not true. >> > > I suppose you think that's very funny, but if you > actually read my post you'll see that I'm talking > about an entirely practical issue, not a religious > or semantic dogma. Fighting over whether MS > "has a right" to name their products as they like > is a red herring issue. > > > -- Tom Shelton
From: Ralph on 4 Oct 2009 15:12 "Armin Zingler" <az.nospam(a)freenet.de> wrote in message news:upcmpOQRKHA.220(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > mayayana schrieb: > > Beg your pardon?! I have *never* maligned .Net > > people who post in the VB6 group. People > > end up posting in the VB group because Microsoft > > has deliberately caused confusion as part of their > > marketing. They started out with VB and added .Net. > > Then they dropped the ".Net" from VB.Net and started > > calling it VB. People can argue all day that VB.Net is > > the next version of VB, but when the dust settles, > > it's simply a lie. VB is for compiled Windows software. > > VB.Net is a Java clone, with different strengths. > > That's a lie! The only true VB version is VBDOS 1.0! > VB6 is _not_ Visual Basic! The manufacturer just > pretends that but it's not true. > I appreciate the humor, but actually Visual Basic 1.0 (for Windows) pre-dates "Visual Basic for DOS", however, the dialect of BASIC employed was merely an extension to the MS DOS versions of BASIC (QB and BPDS) to use a character-based UI called the COW. Your comment has an element of truth in it, as BPD was the last time that MS attempted to adhere to any BASIC language *standard* (ANSI Minimum BASIC). All versions and derivatives of MS's many "Visual Basics" are tied to a specific development platform, and language comparisons (whether semantics, syntax, parsers/compilers, or libraries) are seldom meaningful, or useful, outside of the context of that platform. There isn't, never was, nor ever likely to be a 'Visual Basic" language standard. "Visual Basic" is and always will be what it is - MS's proprietary trademark for whatever BASIC-esque front-end it might provide for a development platform. Programmers for various reasons, the most obvious being that is what they 'see' and work with and thus identify with, often confuse a programming language with a development platform. MS has dropped the Visual Basic 6.0 development platform and its appointed successor is the .Net Framework development platform. They provided a new proprietary "Visual Basic" front-end language for the .Net platform. This new VB is not backward compatible with VB6 nor was it ever meant to be, no more than the .Net Framework development platform was designed to be backward compatible with VB6. While I wouldn't put it as strongly as Mahayana, he has a point that MS has by their naming/marketing strategies created the illusion that VB.Net is somehow a newer, upgraded version of the "Visual Basic" supplied with the VB6 development platform, when in fact it is an entirely new MS BASIC-esque language - sharing nothing more than their BASICesque-ness (ha, is that a word?) and a proprietary trademark. And it is done purely for the purpose of marketing - capitalizing on what was once the most popular development platform in PC history . I have no real disagreement - not sure I wouldn't do the same if I had an established well-recognized product and wanted to introduce a new one. [It works the other way as well - there are good marketing reasons Windows 7 is "Windows 7" and not "Vista 2". <g>] I believe many honestly believe that VB.Net is some kind of advanced "Visual Basic". A belief definitively encouraged by MS, and brought about by their confusion between a programming language and the development platform that language is used with. Had MS stuck with the original label for their new language "Visual Basic.Net" much of this confusion could have been avoided. For while posting in a Java forum the superiority of C#, or posting in a C forum the superiority of Pascal, is easily recognized as being a bit silly and non-professional - they don't recognize doing what amounts to the same in a forum with "Visual Basic" in the title. Regardless that the two languages share little in common beyond being BASIC-esque. It is good that some Windows programmers (using MS tools) have migrated to the .Net Framework development platform - because as far as MS is concerned it is .Net or the highway. And it is good they like using the new "Visual Basic" to program with that platform. I wish them all happiness. (Although frankly, IMHO they will be better off in the long run to adopt C# and VC++/CLI as their primary languages.) But they need to recognized that the ..Net Framework development platform and the Visual Basic development platform are not the same animal and share practically nothing in common. If they used the more appropriate term for the BASIC-esque language provided with the .Net Framework packages - "VB.Net", they would avoid the confusion brought on by MS's use of the trademark, and more easily recognize the sillyness of most of their posts in this forum. -ralph <Its a Sunday, thus some latitude to rambling must be forgiven. <g>>
From: Chris on 5 Oct 2009 12:06
On Oct 3, 9:28 am, DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h....(a)r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote: > "Schmidt" <s...(a)online.de> wrote in news:#A2QY6CRKHA.220 > @TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl: > > > Maybe Karl - or someone else could take an additional > > run again with the new MBSet.zip, to verify our both results > > on hardware with a "normally" working graphics-subsystem > > (at least, that the new version should scale with nearly > > factor 2 between single- and multithreaded, even with > > activated GDI-Refreshs). > > > Olaf > > I don't understand the point to this entire excercise. > > Not true, I understand the original point, to rewrite your app in VB.Net > to try to prove that the newer version is faster. > > But since your version draws the fractal, the .Net version needs to do > the same. Disabling drawing adds another variable to the test, and > therefore nullifies anything the test may or may not have > proven/disproven. > > On this machine.....Athlon64 x2 running @ 3ghz w/3 gigs RAM, nVidia > GeForce 8xxx w/512Megs RAM, maximized to 1400x1050....using the original > zip Tom Shelton posted a link to, and, what I'm assuming is your version > with whatever mod you just did........ > > VB6 > > MT = 1.40 - 1.45 seconds > ST = 2.75 - 2.80 seconds > > .Net > > MT = 35.312 seconds > ST = 36.578 seconds > > .Net frameworks installed here seem to be..... > > 1.0.x > 1.1.x > 2.0.x > 3.0 > 3.5 > > (Identified via these instructions:http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- > us/kb/kb00318785.aspx) > > So who knows why. I can provide streaming video of this test if anyone > doesn't believe...... > > The point is, if GDI is way faster than GDI+, or whatever the argument > is, and that is what is slowing the .Net version down, then the > conclusion of *this test*, is that, in this case, VB.Net is not faster > than VBc. > > It doesn't really matter if the underlying calculations run faster or > not, the program as a whole does not, regardless of whether or not it's > only because of GDI+. > > I'd like to see a compiled version of the .Net code since it's been > optimized from the original linked .zip and see what differences it > makes. From what I recall is that the only other code posted was c# code. How many times did you run the .Net program? The first time I .Net program is run the JIT to native code is performed. Perhaps that would explain some of the timing discrepancies? Chris |