home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Aminet 23
/
Aminet 23 (1998)(GTI - Schatztruhe)[!][Feb 1998].iso
/
Aminet
/
dev
/
amos
/
AMOS1097.lzh
/
AMOSLIST
/
000123_amos-request@svcs1.digex.net_Sat Oct 11 02:47:21 1997.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
1997-11-02
|
4KB
Received: from svcs1.digex.net (svcs1.digex.net [204.91.197.224])
by mail3.access.digex.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA18876
for <mcox@access.digex.net>; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 02:47:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by svcs1.digex.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) id BAA06885
for amos-out; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 01:08:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail2.access.digex.net (mail2.access.digex.net [205.197.247.3])
by svcs1.digex.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA06882
for <amos-list@svcs1.digex.net>; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 01:08:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailhost.sosbbs.com (sosbbs.com [204.186.168.100])
by mail2.access.digex.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA14991
for <amos-list@access.digex.net>; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 01:08:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from gbenjam (204.186.168.53) by mailhost.sosbbs.com
(EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id <B0000119030@mailhost.sosbbs.com>;
Sat, 11 Oct 1997 01:09:39 -0400
Message-ID: <B0000119030@mailhost.sosbbs.com>
From: "Garfield Benjamin" <gbenjam@sosbbs.com>
To: "Anthony Sherratt" <SHEZZOR@mail.talk-101.com>,
"AMOS MAILING LIST" <amos-list@access.digex.net>
Subject: TheSolution?
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 01:10:29 -0400
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: O
X-Status:
> I think your wrong about one thing here, the graphic routines in BLITZ
> are SLOWER than the ones in AMOS. Dont get me wrong the complied
> code is far faster then AMOS (this is what courses the speed difference).
The problem is these things are all subjective. The code-processing can
be MUCH faster or a bit faster depending on your variable-types.
In case I gave the wrong impression, let me clarify. Some gfx-commands
are VERY close to AMOS's speed while others (like "bobs" or blits
actually) are much faster.
> I would just like to put in my 2 pence worth, I know people are going
> to get peed off with the argument but this is what you get for
> mentioning BLITZ on the AMOS List :)
Yes, I like both languages, but even I am growing tired of all the
discussion. I do have a solution for this whole thing (see below).
[SNIP] - I agree with MUCH of what you said...
> So my final conclusion is that it all depends on what you want to
> program and archive. Anybody saying `so-and-so language is crap` or
> `that proggy is crap because it was programmed in so-and-so` is
> aload of crap in itself. Every proggy made on this great machine all
> depends on the programmer. Anyone can make a great proggy in what
> ever language they are com with.
I AGREE COMPLETELY!!!
Now, I think this whole debate can be resolved by simply referring
any one who posts BLITZ vs AMOS messages to my webpages,
which I hope to have up this weekend.
I will set up an area with just this topic in mind. There will be a
demo written in both languages which you can simply download
and then compare the two first-hand.
Also, IF any one on this list has some interest in learning BLITZ then
just write me personally (or visit my webpage) and I'll give you a hand
converting code from AMOS.
It's not that I want to convert PEOPLE over from AMOS, rather that I
think people should have the chance to fairly judge the "other"
language, BUT the place to do that is NOT here...
Case closed!! I'll post a message when I have the webpage ready...
Take care,
GARFIELD