Author |
Topic: 64-Bit BB4W (Read 1660 times) |
|
mohsen
New Member
member is offline
Gender: 
Posts: 39
|
 |
64-Bit BB4W
« Thread started on: Oct 29th, 2008, 10:13am » |
|
Do you think we will ever see a 64-bit version of BB4W? 
Mohsen
|
|
 Logged
|
|
|
|
admin
Administrator
member is offline
Posts: 1145
|
|
Re: 64-Bit BB4W
« Reply #1 on: Oct 29th, 2008, 10:42am » |
|
Quote:| Do you think we will ever see a 64-bit version of BB4W? |
|
Short answer: no. Long answer: no, not the slightest chance!
Seriously, since the BB4W interpreter is written entirely in assembler it would be a massive task to convert it for 64-bits, comparable to the 16-bit to 32-bit conversion I had to do when creating the Win32 version from the MS-DOS version.
There's also little incentive because the majority of PCs with 64-bit CPUs are shipped with Win32 installed. Unlike IA-32 processors (which can execute 32-bit instructions in 16-bit mode, or 16-bit instructions in 32-bit mode, by means of a prefix byte) you can't run 64-bit instructions when in 32-bit mode.
Lastly, a 64-bit version of BBC BASIC would be a different, incompatible, language (assuming that integer variables would be 64 bits). Many existing programs assume that integers are 32-bits, or that the address of B% is 4 greater than the address of A% for example.
Richard.
|
| « Last Edit: Oct 29th, 2008, 10:44am by admin » |
Logged
|
|
|
|
mohsen
New Member
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 39
|
|
Re: 64-Bit BB4W
« Reply #2 on: Oct 29th, 2008, 10:44am » |
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
DDRM
Administrator
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 321
|
|
Re: 64-Bit BB4W
« Reply #3 on: Oct 29th, 2008, 4:07pm » |
|
Quote:| Lastly, a 64-bit version of BBC BASIC would be a different, incompatible, language ... |
|
Now there's an exciting prospect! 
Now there is no need for "legacy" components - you can do whatever you think best for your new language - leave out GOSUB, GOTO, line numbering....
We could have big new data types, antialiased graphics commands built round GDI+ ... start listing your suggestions, boys and girls!
RussellBasic for Win64?
Only joking, but it's good to dream....
Best wishes,
David
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
admin
Administrator
member is offline
Posts: 1145
|
|
Re: 64-Bit BB4W
« Reply #4 on: Oct 29th, 2008, 5:45pm » |
|
Quote:| Now there is no need for "legacy" components - you can do whatever you think best for your new language |
|
You might think that's attractive, but I think it's a nightmare! Whilst there are aspects of BBC BASIC that I find frustrating, and would have designed differently with hindsight (not that I designed them in the first place, you understand), on balance having to adhere to an existing specification is a wonderful security blanket.
Suppose I designed my own language from scratch and, when it was far too late to change it, realised it could and ought to have been done differently. How would I feel then? I pay the price of being a perfectionist, which is bad enough as it is but would be far worse if I'd not only implemented the language but designed it too.
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Michael Hutton
Developer
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 248
|
|
Re: 64-Bit BB4W
« Reply #5 on: Oct 30th, 2008, 05:58am » |
|
I am another dreamer I suppose, just imagine - the first 64-bit BASIC!
I haven't read the results of the poll yet but and don't know how many people use a 64-bit version but here in Oz I was cruising around a computer shop the other day and was surprised to see how many computers came bundled with 64-bit Vista. I don't know much, but if the last 30 years of the electronics revolution is anything to go by, it will be a standard next month! If it's markets you want, there it is!
However, I, sort of, (ie I haven't got an idea of the effort involved!) understand the difficulty of re-writting the code but boy, BB64W!
Michael
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
David Williams
Developer
member is offline
meh
Gender:
Posts: 452
|
|
Re: 64-Bit BB4W
« Reply #6 on: Oct 30th, 2008, 07:43am » |
|
I could swear that Richard once (or twice?) mentioned the possibility of implementing support for 64-bit integers in BB4W. Wouldn't that be nice?
The Wikipedia article on BBC BASIC states the following:
"This version [i.e., BB4W] is still under active development, seeing much industry use currently."
Well, that'll be news to some of us, but if true, 64-bit integers can't ruled out, no?
I propose that 64-bit integer variables be suffixed with the £ (pound) sign.
Code:val1£ = 8281999991818287
val2£ = 101991818727772828252588
sum£ = val1£ + val2£
PRINT sum£
Wouldn't that be cool.
Regards,
David.
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
mohsen
New Member
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 39
|
|
Re: 64-Bit BB4W
« Reply #7 on: Oct 30th, 2008, 08:14am » |
|
I am running BB4W on an HP Workstation 2x quad-core Xeon X5482 CPUs (4x 3.2GHz), 16 GB of DDR2-800 ram and 4TB of disc storage, with Vista 64-bit. Display graphics at 2560 x 1600 32bpp (30").
Sadly, BB4W applications (being 32-bit) run 25% slower on the above machine compared to my $500 office PC which is a Dell Single-CPU Core2 Duo E6750 2.66 GHz, 4GB Ram, Window XP 32-bit.
Of course, this is no fault of BB4W, it is how the WoW64 (Windows-on-Windows 64-bit) works.
People switch to 64-bit Vista or XP for one of two reasons:
1. Get additional processing power with 64-bit native applications.
2. Get additional memory capacity. (each 32-bit application however limited to 4GB address space).
What made me switch to 64-bit is the need for more memory above 8GB which is not possible with 32-bit Vista.
There is a talk however that the next operating system (Window 7) may support memory addressing above 4 GB running under the 32-bit environment when installed in machines with 64-bit capable CPUs.
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
admin
Administrator
member is offline
Posts: 1145
|
|
Re: 64-Bit BB4W
« Reply #8 on: Oct 30th, 2008, 09:34am » |
|
Michael Hutton wrote:
Quote:
What's the attraction? The vast majority of BBC BASIC programs would run more slowly under a 64-bit version, and they would undoubtedly have a significantly larger memory footprint. The increased addressing space is of no relevance (BB4W is currently restricted to 256 Mbytes, rather then the theoretical 1 Gb under 32-bit Windows, and nobody has ever complained). Floating point numbers would remain the same size, and be no faster.
So that leaves integer arithmetic on values that don't fit in 32 bits as the only thing that would benefit. I can't say I've ever wanted to do that, and for the few people who do it's got to be weighed against all those other disadvantages.
David Williams wrote:
Quote:| I could swear that Richard once (or twice?) mentioned the possibility of implementing support for 64-bit integers in BB4W |
|
It's never going to happen now, but had it been implemented it would have been a 64-bit integer data type, not a version to run on a 64-bit processor!
Quote:| "This version [i.e., BB4W] is still under active development, seeing much industry use currently." |
|
You can probably find out who wrote that by checking the page history, unless they did it anonymously; it certainly wasn't me. If you feel it's misleading you know what to do.
Quote:I propose that 64-bit integer variables be suffixed with the £ (pound) sign.
|
|
It can't work. The pound sign is already used: it's the token for FALSE. Try typing £ into the program editor. There are no spare characters left that could straightforwardly be used as a variable-type suffix.
Mohsen wrote:
Quote:Of course, this is no fault of BB4W, it is how the WoW64 (Windows-on-Windows 64-bit) works.
|
|
As far as I'm aware 32-bit applications don't run significantly more slowly under WoW64 than they would under Win32. Unless, of course, you know different.
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
eekster11
Guest
|
|
Re: 64-Bit BB4W
« Reply #9 on: Nov 13th, 2008, 02:53am » |
|
As a general query.
Has anyone written a 64 bit language yet?
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
