Converting MINI-BASIC in MASM over to C++?

**phantomotap** · 05-29-2009

"Is a final release coming soon?"

This is software development. There is no final release; there is only the last release.

"Optional use of uSTL instead [...] half it's current size."

This is a spectacularly bad idea. The uSTL is not a replacement for the STL, copatble with the STL, or even an alias for the STL.

Instead you may as well use `std::vector<???>' for all storage requirements--replacing every other container--, pun `std::vector<??? *>' as `std::vector<void *>', and use the C IO routines directly. At least then you retain some level of portability and isolation, and the source will not give the allusion of being what it isn't.

Soma

**matsp** · 05-30-2009

Whilst it may be that uSTL isn't a plug-in replacement for STL, it is certainly capable of doing pretty close to everything that our current code is doing in STL - I'm still working through the code to make uSTL compile properly (I only just switched the computer on for the first time a little bit ago, so I haven't done ANYTHING on it today). I certainly think it's a better solution than the solution you are suggesting. Particularly since using uSTL means very few changes to the ACTUAL code, whilst your suggestion implies a lot of changes. And it's selectable, so anyone who wants to use STL can still do so [assuming recompile, of course].

I agree on the "final release". I think we are actually looking pretty good at the moment, and I would have no problem with the current version being used more widely.

--
Mats

**phantomotap** · 05-30-2009

"it is certainly capable of doing pretty close to everything that our current code is doing in STL"

NO. IT. IS. NOT.

A `std::vector<std:

air<x, y>>' masquerading as a `std::map<x, y>' is not even in the same universe as what we need.

"I certainly think it's a better solution than the solution you are suggesting."

O_o

That wasn't a suggestion; that was sarcasm.

*shrug*

If you want to waste time adding that as option solely because the resulting binary is a little large go for it.

Soma

**matsp** · 06-12-2009

Well, my wasted time has achieved this (I've just submitted the code itself, however, I will have to add all the USTL code to the local repo first - it's currently in a different directory).

Now for the results:
1. The compiled code is 183KB, instead of 549KB.
2. The speed of execution (simple benchmark) is approx 5x faster than Visual Studio [1], but about the same as gcc with stl.

[1] This is probably because of some feature we can switch off with a #define - I just haven't figured out what (because I've spent 0 time on that).

--
Mats

Thread: Converting MINI-BASIC in MASM over to C++?

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Hybrid View

Similar Threads

Converting textBox1->Text into a basic string.

[ANN] New script engine (Basic sintax)

what are your thoughts on visual basic?

VC++ 6 & MASM (eek)