Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog
mcguire at neurotica.com
Wed Feb 10 17:26:20 CST 2010
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]
> 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,
> 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.
Port Charlotte, FL
More information about the cctalk