HMGforum.com

concentra wrote:Hi Everybody.
... cut ...

concentra wrote:

mrduck wrote: Mauricio, do you have software in the works based on HMG4 ?

Parts of my mainstream software, the one that puts the money in my pocket, are in HMG4 in production environment.
Is a huge mixed console/GUI application using WVG/WVT and FiveWin.
All new functionality we are trying to write in HMG4 and the goal is to have it all in HMG4 in the future, multiplataform.

concentra wrote: And I am realistic, I don't expect this goal to be completed in less than 2 or 3 years.
And, HMG4 still have a long way to be finished itself.

concentra wrote: And of course such an application must be coded accordingly to run in the device Android is running, don't expect to have a fully functional desktop application running efficiently in a cell phone...

Ricci wrote:

mrduck wrote: But, are you (all the readers) willing to cooperate ? How ?
For example, do you have a "small complete program" that you can try to port to HMG4 ? With "small complete program" I mean something with 3/4 forms, with some DBFs ?

Yes, I can port my Orchid program to HMG4, I still started some month ago but stopped because at this time browse/grid did not work with dbf. The main form is still working so I can continue with the rest.

rathinagiri wrote:I am porting my Interest(ing) calculator and will post today or tomorrow.

mrduck wrote:

Ricci wrote:

mrduck wrote: But, are you (all the readers) willing to cooperate ? How ?
For example, do you have a "small complete program" that you can try to port to HMG4 ? With "small complete program" I mean something with 3/4 forms, with some DBFs ?

Yes, I can port my Orchid program to HMG4, I still started some month ago but stopped because at this time browse/grid did not work with dbf. The main form is still working so I can continue with the rest.

Thanks, I was about to ask to you since I found reference to your test with marinas in an old thread. Is it open source ?
PLEASE tell me if you have problems with the GRID/BROWSE, I'm doing some work on it.
If there are errors, please send me the GRID/BROWSE istruction to test.

Ricci wrote:
Looks like I need a lot of time.
I get hundreds of warnings while compiling and errors which I don´t understand at program start. With the last version of HMG4 everything was fine.
That´s frustrating.

Seems like I have to build my program from the scratch, but 2000 lines of code only for testing ????

FUNCTION doMethod( a1, a2, a3 )
   DO CASE
   CASE pCount() == 2
      &a1:&a2()
   CASE pCount() == 3
      &a1:&a2:&a3()
   ENDCASE
RETURN .T.

Ricci wrote:

rathinagiri wrote:And we have to verify whether HMG4 is that slower. I personally don't think so. Once loaded, it is as fast as windows, I think.

It´s a bit slower because the way of a command to the graphical output is "longer" and the definition of objects seems to be slower (because of QT?).
About the size of the remaining exe: if I include the QT-libs into the exe it will be about 50 MB, the same HMG3 program under 3MB.

But that´s nothing to worry about. When I said, HMG4 is slower than HMG3, I mean that it is a bit slower not "it is slow".
It is normal that platform independent software is slower than platform optimized. If you compare Office 2010 with OpenOffice, there is a big difference in speed (especially when loading the program) but you can work with both of them without problems.

                  hmg4    hmg3   hmgee    oohg
 get value        0.26    4.05    3.10    3.36
 set value        0.34    3.70    9.54   15.69
 set height       0.59    5.40    7.62    6.45
 hide/show        2.52   90.40   87.30  116.50

 hmg4  Harbour + MinGW
 hmg3  Harbour + MinGW
 hmgee Harbour + Bcc
 oohg  xHarbour + Bcc

 #include "hmg.ch"
* #include "minigui.ch"
* #include "oohg.ch"
* #include "ighqt.ch"

MEMVAR oWin

FUNCTION Main

   LOCAL  lbl1

   PUBLIC oWin


  DEFINE WINDOW oWin ;
    AT 0,0 ;
    WIDTH 450 HEIGHT 400 ;
    TITLE 'Main Window' ;
    MAIN

    @ 10,10 LABEL lbl1 ;
    WIDTH 350 ;
    HEIGHT 30 ;
    VALUE ''

    @ 50,10 LABEL Label_2 ;
    VALUE 'Click Me !' ;
    ACTION Test()

    @ 100,10 editBox ed1 ;
    WIDTH 450 ;
    HEIGHT 250 ;
    VALUE ''

  END WINDOW
 ACTIVATE WINDOW  oWin

RETURN NIL


/*----------------------------------------------------------------------*/

FUNCTION test()

   LOCAL q, nx, c := ''

   oWin.lbl1.value    := 'test'

   q := seconds()

   FOR nx := 1 TO 100000
      x := oWin.lbl1.value
   NEXT

   c += 'get value ' + hb_NToS( seconds() - q )

   q := seconds()

   FOR nx := 1 TO 100000
      oWin.lbl1.value    := 'qwerty'
   NEXT

   c += ' set value=' + hb_NToS( seconds() - q )

   q := seconds()

   FOR nx := 1 TO 100000
      oWin.lbl1.height   := 50
   NEXT

   c += ' set height=' + hb_NToS( seconds() - q )

   q := seconds()

   FOR nx := 1 TO 100000
     **  oWin.lbl1.backcolor := {250,0,0}
      oWin.lbl1.hide()
      oWin.lbl1.show()
   NEXT

   c += ' hide/show=' + hb_NToS( seconds() - q )

   oWin.ed1.value  := oWin.ed1.value + chr(13)+chr(10) +  c

   RETURN 0

Carlos Britos wrote: I've made a very simple comparation between gui libs, is not the true of the universe, it's just to see some difference between them. Of course to get a real performance of the libs, we need a different test.
Testing the below code the values are in seconds:
average 5 times - loop 100000

Code: Select all

                  hmg4    hmg3   hmgee    oohg
 get value        0.26    4.05    3.10    3.36
 set value        0.34    3.70    9.54   15.69
 set height       0.59    5.40    7.62    6.45
 hide/show        2.52   90.40   87.30  116.50

 hmg4  Harbour + MinGW
 hmg3  Harbour + MinGW
 hmgee Harbour + Bcc
 oohg  xHarbour + Bcc