Boncuk, what does that have to do with a table lookup?

__________________

 

Sorry, but I don't believe you - an interpreted BASIC doesn't run faster than a compiled language (it runs MUCH slower).

Are you perhaps referring to QuickBasic rather than QBasic?, as QuickBasic is a compiler.

As for potential speed differences, I would suggest it depends entirely on how the two programmes were written - particularly if you were doing complicated maths with them.

__________________
PIC programmer software, and PIC Tutorials at:
http://www.winpicprog.co.uk

 

Sceadwian, nothing, it was just a respond to Nigel's post.

Nigel, it was QBasic I mentioned.

What is the speed difference when executing an interpreter based program and a compiled program with two lousy numbers out of a limited selection?

Hans

__________________
Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance

 

Boncuk you're not serious are you? Use a basic stamp interpreted from eeprom (pic based) and the SAME pic with the SAME effective program in flash. The PIC will beat the stamp 4 to one or better, probably much more.

__________________

 

It depends on the amount of instructions which have to be executed. Every keyword has to pass the interpreter using any kind of Basic. The more keywords are used the slower will be program execution.

I once built an air data computer (for air movement purposes) using a Z80 MCU. I burnt the entire Basic software including the interpreter into an EPROM and still had to make delay loops since the results on the display changed too rapidly (dealing with 1/10 Pascals of air pressure).

Of course will machine language software run faster than any high language.

I used Locomotive Basic (Amstrad) to calculate all possible combinations of parallel resistors for a desired (non standard) value. Even with a dozen of possibilies the results were on screen within a very short time, almost unnoticeable.

Also the memory space in MICROCHIPs as well as in ATMELs is very limited and won't allow to use a basic interpreter, which I guess would be appreciated by many people.

__________________
Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance

 

Regardless of the number of instructions, interpreted BASIC is far slower than compiled code.

Where have you been the last 20 years?, the BASIC Stamp is a PIC interpreter, and the more modern PICAXE is another one.

There have also been two free amateur PIC interpreters based on the Stamp, neither ever reached fruition, but were workable - a bit like the forerunner of the early PICAXE, stored the program in internal data EEPROM.

__________________
PIC programmer software, and PIC Tutorials at:
http://www.winpicprog.co.uk

 

Well, I was on earth, whereas the BASIC STAMP must be from somewhere else in the universe because of its extraorbital price.

BTW, the air data computer I mentioned is 30 years old.

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________
Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance

 

Boncuk, has your mind slipped?
That comment is dead wrong. The basic stamp IS a basic interpreter, and you could do the same thing with a Atmel chip if you so chose.

Your testimonials to the speed of basic are completely irrelevant to the fact that a compiled language is always faster than an interpreted one on the same hardware.

__________________

 

So you haven't heard of anyone producing an interpreter for the AVR either?, because I hadn't.

I suspect it's due to the AVR been such a recent chip, the STAMP long predates it - and free AVR compilers are available.

__________________
PIC programmer software, and PIC Tutorials at:
http://www.winpicprog.co.uk

 

I think Parllax really shot themselves in the food using a basic interpreter. The basic compilers available for PIC and AVR are way way better in every aspect and no more difficult to use. Since there are already compilers for the AVR there's really no reason to make an interpreter, very few people would outgrow the available code space of a larger AVR and anyone that did wouldn't be using basic. I'm going to guess basic stamps pre-date the free version of the basic compilers for pics that are out there which is the reason for it's existence.

__________________

 

Hardly, they made a LOT of money from selling the STAMP, it was an incredibly successful product.

As far as I'm aware it pre-dated any BASIC compilers at all, and when compilers did eventually appear they were deliberately compatible with the BASIC STAMP.

__________________
PIC programmer software, and PIC Tutorials at:
http://www.winpicprog.co.uk

 

I love the fact that I learned PIC programming at a company that was a) phasing out ALL forms of programming for PIC micros other than C, and b) phasing out anything less than an 18F series chip unless small size was required (like an 8 pin 12F or something).

 

That's why I like AVR's speakerguy. When I found micro controllers even the 8pin bits were better than a fast PIC. The 18 series or so fixed most of the 'problems' with PIC's but I still like AVR best.

__________________

 

Unfortunately I have never played with AVR. I think I need to learn Verilog and FPGA's next. Maybe then AVR.

 

I hope that's a joke. You don't take a step forward like an FPGA and then go back to AVR's =)

__________________