Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog

[Dave McGuire]

On Feb 9, 2010, at 6:12 PM, Josh Dersch wrote:
> You can indeed use C#, via the Mono project.  Generics are a very  
> basic form of C++ templates that are good for creating generic  
> containers, and that's about it.  C++ templates are considerably  
> more involved, and metaprogramming tricks are used to do all manner  
> of insane things at compile time.  At a very basic level, the two  
> are the same.  It's like saying a Yugo and a Maserati are  
> equivalent because they are both cars.  (yes, you can use analogies  
> here :)

   Ok, I understand that a bit better now.  I will go read up on  
generics a bit.  Thanks for the clarification.

>>>> It may be, at least in part, speculation...but with lots of  
>>>> experience to back it up.  Quite simply, almost everything I've  
>>>> seen written in C++ and Java (even with native compilation) is  
>>>> slow, and most everything I've seen written in C, assembler, and  
>>>> Forth is fast.
>>>
>>> I could argue that I've also seen the exact opposite,  but I'm  
>>> not sure what that would prove.
>>
>>  You have?  Seriously?
>
> Yep.  Again, it's a case of bad programmers doing stupid things.

   Well ok, but is that the rule or the exception? ;)

>>  Playing music, playing video files, telnetting, sshing, editing,  
>> compiling, browsing the web, etc etc etc.  The apps are a bit  
>> prettier now, certainly moreso than with fvwm, but I'd happily  
>> live without that.
>
> See, here's where I see a disconnect;  you are doing the same  
> *class* of thing,  but you're not really doing the same thing.   
> Programs have gotten more complex because people want more from  
> their software.

   Sure, I see where you're coming from, and I agree.  But I'm  
actually doing the same thing.  With the exception of Firefox and  
Mail.app, the stuff I run is all pretty lightweight.  I wish Mail.app  
were a bit lighter, in particular, because I, even being a VERY heavy  
email user, barely scratch the surface of [most of] its [pointless]  
features.

> Regardless of whether Firefox 3.5 was written in assembly or C++  
> you'd never hope to run it on your IPX.  I just think you are  
> blaming the wrong thing (or just blaming one thing) for the  
> performance degradations you are perceiving.  OO overhead adds some  
> not imperceivable overhead; so do each of extensibility,  
> abstraction, support for "modern standards" (CSS, JavaScript, XML)  
> ui theming, support for "advanced" desktop metaphors, etc... Code  
> reuse and abstractions also bring overhead; these exist even in C,   
> but the overhead is worth it in terms of maintenance and usability  
> (from a programming and a user perspective.)

   I do see where you're coming from.  Perhaps I give OO too much  
blame, but I stand by my accusations...it does deserve a lot of it,  
in my opinion.  It wasn't until very recent releases of common C  
compilers, for example, that a simple "hello world" program in C++  
generated a 600KB (yes, six hundred kilobyte) binary.  I've  
demonstrated that (along with its 4KB C equivalent) many times.  I  
was, admittedly, pleased to see that this particular brand of idiocy  
has been addressed.  I have no idea what was in that damn binary.

              -Dave

-- 
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL