Computers and heat density
THX1138 at dakotacom.net
Sun Aug 13 21:20:17 CDT 2006
Bill Sudbrink wrote:
> Don wrote:
>> And, in languages like C++, all of the machinery going
>> on "behind the scenes" (automatic type conversion,
>> constructor invocations, etc.) is so far out of the
>> typical "programmer's" mind/scope of knowledge that
>> it's a wonder *anything* works! :-(
> That's exactly the kind of stuff I have to deal with on a
> regular basis. We have a large database manipulation application
> full of classes with accessor methods that return instances of
> string classes. Copy constructors executing all over the place.
> Memory being uselessly copied from place to place accounts for
Exactly. "X = Y" can consume a sh*tload of cycles
depending on what X is, etc.
> over 30 percent of the app's CPU usage. Programmer's response
> to the suggestion that maybe some of the accessors return
> (const char *) insead?
> "That's just wrong." "My classes are bullet proof." "Someone
> could recast the pointer and sabotage my classes." "Modern
> computers have plenty of CPU capacity."
> This code does not go out of our shop... We all regularly
> review each other's code but he spouts all of the "patterns"
I suspect the code was never "engineered", either.
Just slapped together until it worked and then kept
that way as a "fait accompli".
More information about the cctalk