« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

Author Topic: Oxygen Update  (Read 24124 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

efgee

  • Guest
Re: Oxygen Update
« Reply #30 on: July 15, 2013, 09:12:15 AM »
Quote from: JRS on July 15, 2013, 03:22:19 AM
Thanks Charles for your relentless efforts in making OxygenBasic the best BASIC compiler by far.

Indeed a remarkable performance!

It's just a bummer that I left Windows/OS long time ago :o

BTW: A while back there was talk about rewriting Oxygen with itself, is this still planned? It would be neat if Oxygen would spit out 100% nasm compatible code. This way Oxygen could run on native Linux and OSX. The user base could jump tremendously  ;D
Logged

Aurel

  • Guest
Re: Oxygen Update
« Reply #31 on: July 15, 2013, 09:25:33 AM »
Quote
Indeed a remarkable performance!
THat's why i like OXYGEN BASIC... ;)
Logged

Peter

  • Guest
Re: Oxygen Update
« Reply #32 on: July 15, 2013, 10:21:18 AM »
Quote
It would be neat if Oxygen would spit out 100% nasm compatible code.
If that happens, I am willing to leave this forum !
Logged

efgee

  • Guest
Re: Oxygen Update
« Reply #33 on: July 15, 2013, 11:16:52 AM »
Quote from: peter on July 15, 2013, 10:21:18 AM
Quote
It would be neat if Oxygen would spit out 100% nasm compatible code.
If that happens, I am willing to leave this forum !

If Charles goes ahead and makes Oxygen OS agnostic it's his choice.

If you leave this forum because of that... it's your choice.

 ::)
Logged

Aurel

  • Guest
Re: Oxygen Update
« Reply #34 on: July 15, 2013, 11:19:56 AM »
NASM....
-very bad experience with this asm in EBasic compiled exes  :-\
Logged

JRS

  • Guest
Re: Oxygen Update
« Reply #35 on: July 15, 2013, 11:30:44 AM »
Quote from: Aurel on July 15, 2013, 11:19:56 AM
NASM....
-very bad experience with this asm in EBasic compiled exes  :-\

Maybe you should have taken the hint from your first bad experience (EBasic) before exacerbating it with NASM.
Logged

JRS

  • Guest
Re: Oxygen Update
« Reply #36 on: July 15, 2013, 11:46:54 AM »
Quote
If that happens, I am willing to leave this forum !

If you're accepting advice from friends, leaving O2 would be self defeating. If you ever find yourself out on the street, I have reserved a room for you at All Basic.  ;)
Logged

Aurel

  • Guest
Re: Oxygen Update
« Reply #37 on: July 15, 2013, 12:36:02 PM »
Quote
Maybe you should have taken the hint from your first bad experience (EBasic) before exacerbating it with NASM.
John ..
this time you talk about things you dont know and you probably never tested ebasic compiled code
with nasm code and both gave same slow results ...so nasm is slow.
Of course i try compile programs with nasm only and also same thing...sloow for one assembler.
I think that FASM is on top of all asemblers ( maybe turbo-asm to)
end of story ....
Logged

JRS

  • Guest
Re: Oxygen Update
« Reply #38 on: July 15, 2013, 01:32:35 PM »
Please reread/translate my post. Nowhere did it indicate I have used EBasic or NASM. The point was not expanding on your first mistake.

Logged

efgee

  • Guest
Re: Oxygen Update
« Reply #39 on: July 15, 2013, 03:17:40 PM »
Quote from: Aurel on July 15, 2013, 12:36:02 PM
... ebasic compiled code with nasm code and both gave same slow results ...so nasm is slow.
Of course i try compile programs with nasm only and also same thing...sloow for one assembler.
I think that FASM is on top of all asemblers ( maybe turbo-asm to)
end of story ....

Aurel,
Your reference to EBasic/NASM just proves that the assembler code EBasic generated was of bad quality.
It doesn't say a thing about how good or how bad NASM is.

Every assembler NASM/FASM/YASM plays with a CPU's opcode.
If a bad sequence of opcode is chosen, does it proof that the assembler is bad?
No, it proofs that the programmer did a bad job (in EBasic's case it was Paul Turley).

Take as an example PureBasic: the Windows version uses FASM, the Linux/OSX version uses NASM...

If I write bad assembler code for FASM I cannot blame FASM for the slowness of my program.
And believe me I'm totally able to write horrible assembler code for FASM  :P
Logged

Aurel

  • Guest
Re: Oxygen Update
« Reply #40 on: July 15, 2013, 10:06:41 PM »
Quote
Your reference to EBasic/NASM just proves that the assembler code EBasic generated was of bad quality
really...
So,if this is a true...how you can then explain that ebasic code > converted to NASM
run on the same (slow) speed as...
only Nasm code
One IWB forum member can cofirm this without problem...
so you can believe what you whish 8)
Logged

JRS

  • Guest
Re: Oxygen Update
« Reply #41 on: July 15, 2013, 11:05:48 PM »
NASM is written in C and supports many object files (ELF, COFF, OMF, MACH-O, AOUT, etc).

FASM is written in assembly, generates ELF / COFF object files, and ELF / PE / MZ executables

Note NASM needs a linker for generating executables.
Logged

Charles Pegge

  • Guest
Re: Oxygen Update
« Reply #42 on: July 16, 2013, 12:26:55 AM »
Quote
A while back there was talk about rewriting Oxygen with itself, is this still planned? It would be neat if Oxygen would spit out 100% nasm compatible code. This way Oxygen could run on native Linux and OSX. The user base could jump tremendously.

Spitting Nasm is certainly easier than spitting LLVM.
Logged

efgee

  • Guest
Re: Oxygen Update
« Reply #43 on: July 16, 2013, 09:25:39 AM »
Quote from: Aurel on July 15, 2013, 10:06:41 PM
One IWB forum member can cofirm this without problem...

Maybe this only proofs that the IWB forum member is a bad coder as well...  :-*

One thing for sure: NASM is faster than WINE  ;D
« Last Edit: July 16, 2013, 10:16:23 AM by efgee »
Logged

JRS

  • Guest
Re: Oxygen Update
« Reply #44 on: July 16, 2013, 11:45:16 AM »
Quote
One thing for sure: NASM is faster than WINE
Hold on there. I just got a Wine 1.6 update for i386 & amd64 and there may be new Windows magic (compatibility fixes) as part of the release.  :D

Wine is more convenient than firing up a VirtualBox with XP installed.


Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
« previous next »