Why VB 6.0??

Printable View

Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

July 22nd, 2008, 01:09 PM
WizBang

1 Attachment(s)

Re: Why VB 6.0??

This is very interesting Gremmy!

So, what do you suppose accounts for the differences between the differences? LOL I mean, the .net version is about twice the speed this time, whereas drawing boxes was relatively close.

I intentionally put the CheckBox in the loop to see how fast the object itself was being accessed. I just tried storing the value of the CheckBox in a variable, and as expected, that was faster. So let's try the same for the .net version, to get an idea of the difference between accessing objects, and accessing variables. New code attached (and I like the ListBox idea).
July 22nd, 2008, 01:32 PM
javajawa

1 Attachment(s)

Re: Why VB 6.0??

We need to do a direct comparison of how fast data is added to a ListBox in order to subtract that from the loop time to get the execution time of the code we're testing.

This code should port directlyish - it's simple enough :p
July 22nd, 2008, 01:49 PM
WizBang

Re: Why VB 6.0??

Quote:

Originally Posted by javajawa

We need to do a direct comparison of how fast data is added to a ListBox in order to subtract that from the loop time to get the execution time of the code we're testing.

This code should port directlyish - it's simple enough :p

No, that doesn't happen until after the time is taken, so it doesn't effect the test.
July 22nd, 2008, 01:57 PM
javajawa

Re: Why VB 6.0??

Quote:

Originally Posted by WizBang

No, that doesn't happen until after the time is taken, so it doesn't effect the test.

My apologies, you are, once again, correct.
July 22nd, 2008, 02:26 PM
Joeman

1 Attachment(s)

Re: Why VB 6.0??

I took the ideal to use a lisbox to see how fast vb6 and vb.net can populate the listbox.

Now I know I am not the best .net coder. I didn't try to use the slowest methods either. vb6 to vb.net looks exactly the same except for a couple lines that needed to be changed.. for ex listbox.additem to listbox.items.add

The Project is attached. This populates the listbox with "abc" ;).
The results are:

vb6 - 907 ms
vb.net - 2218 ms

I didn't do anything to trick you. I did hide the listbox because it is much faster to populate like that. I did it for both. Feel free to correct any of my mistakes if there are any

Both vb6 and vb.net projects are attached
July 22nd, 2008, 02:46 PM
javajawa

Re: Why VB 6.0??

Sorry about the "ABC". I haven't had enough sleep :D

I've just run the same test as you, both with the listbox visible and hidden. I was very careful about form and control sizes for the visible one, so that the paint region was the same. I've taken averages across a number of runs (as this thing is becoming slightly jerking due to encoding mp3s...)

It was all done form a Compiled exe. Not using the debugger.

Results:
Visible:
Vb.Net: 156ms (ranged from 110 - 172, including 5 172s out of ten runs)
vb6: 106ms (range 78 - 165, including 4 94s out of ten runs)

Hidden (NOTE: NOT THE SAME NUMBER OF RUNS!)
Vb.net 528ms little range
vb6 I got bored after about 30seconds...so one run was 38953.
July 22nd, 2008, 02:50 PM
Joeman

Re: Why VB 6.0??

No problem. Could you download the listbox_speed.zip and run them both compiled without any modification, so we can get a more solid ground on results. EDIT: I want you because I did modify code a bit, so your code is no longer the same size on both the gui or coding wise
July 22nd, 2008, 02:51 PM
GremlinSA

1 Attachment(s)

Re: Why VB 6.0??

okay so i did much the same for the Sorting Algo's...

I did a quick rewrite of the VB6 code into VB.NET, and the results are some what interesting....

VB6 left, VB.NET right...
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r...er/Sorting.gif

NOW... Some notes...

1) The sorting is done directly within the Listbox...
2) None of the code has been optimised..
3) Sorting times are also dependant on how out out of sort the array is, and it's a little beyond thescope of this test to try and give both test apps the same list..

Anyone care to interpret these results, and perhaps tweek the code...
July 22nd, 2008, 03:03 PM
GremlinSA

Re: Why VB 6.0??

Quote:

Originally Posted by WizBang

This is very interesting Gremmy!

So, what do you suppose accounts for the differences between the differences? LOL I mean, the .net version is about twice the speed this time, whereas drawing boxes was relatively close.

What i've been thinking is that .NET has an Updated maths object, something a lot faster, taking advantage of some of the new Chip features..

For example, VB6's "K = K + 1" can be translated to "K += 1"...

That's about all I can figure...
July 22nd, 2008, 03:08 PM
Joeman

Re: Why VB 6.0??

I downloaded you code for sorting, but I couldn't test the vb6 version because I couldn't find it in there. Did you Post the vb6 version?
July 22nd, 2008, 03:11 PM
GremlinSA

Re: Why VB 6.0??

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeman

I took the ideal to use a lisbox to see how fast vb6 and vb.net can populate the listbox.

The results are:

vb6 - 907 ms
vb.net - 2218 ms

This one i think may be a little easier to explain..

The Listbox Item object in VB6 is smaller than the VB.NET object.. In .NET it uses more memory, and hence takes longer to create/Allocate the memory..

Look at the sorting algo's test to see what i'm saying...
July 22nd, 2008, 03:12 PM
Joeman

Re: Why VB 6.0??

At least this explains why some people call the gui part slower. It makes alot more since now.

EDIT: I am referring to locked and delayed window components on the window
July 22nd, 2008, 03:20 PM
GremlinSA

Re: Why VB 6.0??

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeman

I downloaded you code for sorting, but I couldn't test the vb6 version because I couldn't find it in there. Did you Post the vb6 version?

The original VB6 code is in this article

The VB6 code has been pretty much tweeked, short of sorting in the Listbox. This was done on purpose, to enable the 'display sort progress', and a few other things...
July 22nd, 2008, 03:38 PM
GremlinSA

Re: Why VB 6.0??

Okay i spent a little time checking the code and found a few things..

1) in a few places I put "If Prog.Checked = 1 Then", this takes longer to execute than "If Prog.Checked Then", which is what it was suposed to be..

2) changing the declaration of "S_Temp" to "Integer" instead of "Object" in the Swap Sub looks to help speed it up..

New times for .NET with these changes.. from the top.. 11622ms, 3822ms, 2106ms, 1045ms, 249ms, 483ms, 359ms...
July 22nd, 2008, 05:38 PM
JeffB

1 Attachment(s)

Re: Why VB 6.0??

Care if I add a speed test of mine? It's pure calculation and the results are pretty interesting. Now, see if you can tweak some compilation parameters or some code parameters and even the things out. Maybe testing with the unsafe keyword (for the c# app) could make things faster?

Anyway, the .zip file include the code for c++, vb6, c# and vb.net and the results I got on my computer. Do you get similar results?

JeffB
July 22nd, 2008, 05:45 PM
Arjay

Re: Why VB 6.0??

Wow, look at all these trees. What is this place?
July 23rd, 2008, 04:43 AM
WizBang

1 Attachment(s)

Re: Why VB 6.0??

Quote:

Originally Posted by GremlinSA

What i've been thinking is that .NET has an Updated maths object, something a lot faster, taking advantage of some of the new Chip features..

For example, VB6's "K = K + 1" can be translated to "K += 1"...

That's about all I can figure...

I was wondering about that, but also about the speed of the graphics object that you used in the .net version for drawing the squares. Perhaps the more graphics work the code must do, the slower .net would become relative to the VB6 code using API.

So it might prove insightful to test a routine which checks the properties of a bunch of controls, such as buttons, checkboxes, dropdowns, etc. As long as it doesn't change any properties, the controls won't need to be redrawn, so it should give some idea of how efficiently the objects are accessed.

But, before I write that, I'll post the sorting test I slapped together earlier. This uses BubbleSort, and the CheckBox determines whether the array to be sorted is numeric or string. (the original button and code is still there too). A ListBox is included to show multiple test results.
July 23rd, 2008, 06:37 AM
GremlinSA

Re: Why VB 6.0??

Okay i've started a whole bank of threads in the CODE WAR forum, and think it'll be better to take these tests there...

This is the control thread which will have links to each of the individule tests .. I think it is important to keep each test in a seperate thread to minimise the cross test comparison...
July 24th, 2008, 09:51 AM
George1111

Re: Why VB 6.0??

Perhaps one of the questions should have been

"Why VB.Net ?"

http://www.adit.co.uk/html/vb7rant.html

http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/oopbad.htm
July 24th, 2008, 10:17 AM
javajawa

Re: Why VB 6.0??

Indeed.
Having now worked with both, I really think a VB7 might STILL be needed. The only features of .NET i've liked are Docking and the proper classes. Oh, and the ability to (if a bit messily and difficultly) deal with pointers. None of these, however, rely on the .NET framework...
July 25th, 2008, 01:18 AM
HanneSThEGreaT

Re: Why VB 6.0??

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arjay

Wow, look at all these trees. What is this place?

The big Code war Forest ( AKA. VB Forest ) :)
OK, I've got a dumb sense of humour LOL!
November 8th, 2008, 05:34 AM
dee-u

Re: Why VB 6.0??

There is not too many option that can be favourable for using VB6.0? Like 'I prefer it even if I know .Net'?

Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page