| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
Comments:
<0> jel, and as i said...its not the languages fault, but it is a fact, that c++ code runs slower than c code, for all the code that ive seen, and is larger
<0> jel, blame it on implementations, blame it on programmers, blame it on whatever you want...but 'hello world' in c++ is 10% larger than in c ;)
<1> headmonkey: you're talking about virtual calls or something? They are there for a reason, and can be avoided when you know what you're doing.
<0> jel, im sure....but ive no need for c++ features...it only complicates matters...c runs my system just fine
<1> headmonkey: well, if you just want "hello world", you should type it on the command line. As kestas said, it's about choosing the right language for the task.
<1> headmonkey: fair enough; stick with c or whatever :)
<0> you guys dont need to give me an education...ive been doing this for 20 years
<0> ive written a financial securities trading platform...and for all i know its gonna run on an ibm mainframe....c was the best language for the task
<2> I've just tested it... Yep, C++ is 0.001sec slower.
<0> now multiply that number times the number of lines of source code in a large app ;)
<1> freeone3000: C++ sets up more features in its startup wrapper, it's not a slower language
<0> jel, all commonly available implementations produce code that is slower than commonly available c implementations ... if that lets the tech in you relax and accept a bit of truth ;)
<2> jel: Java features even more, has more startup time, and clocks in even slower. I count total execution time - that's what really matters,isn't it?
<1> headmonkey: bull.
<1> headmonkey: that's just a misconception
<3> java's slow as ****, lol
<1> freeone3000: java is apples-to-oranges here
<0> jel, one is faster than the other...they arent both exactly the same speed....so do the tests for yourself
<3> i even had openoffice compile w/o java support cuz i hate java so much
<1> headmonkey: no, it's incomparible.
<0> yeah...java ****s
<4> lo_tek: heh
<1> -able.
<0> jel, speed is a comparable feature of a compilers code output
<2> jel: But still... doesn't matter how long the actual instructions are being done. Just matters how long it actually executes.
<3> java was one of the first languages i learned, but i started to hate it very quickly
<1> headmonkey: you can't compare things when you don't understand the comparison you're drawing.
<3> java's a nightmare of bloatware
<5> why?
<0> jel, you can say its bull, but do some tests...prove me wrong
<2> Oh come on. The standard API is only 100MB.
<5> I'm now doing a ruby tutorial and it's nice
<1> headmonkey: and to do that, you'll have to try C++ for a while, understand its benefits, and its weaknesses.
<0> jel, i understand the comparisons...thats how i can code OO in c in the first place ;)
<5> could be entirely due to the tutorial
<3> i'll stick with plain old c myself
<2> Python... :)
<1> headmonkey: no, I used to code object oriented stuff in c, before even seeing C++.
<3> i don't have time to spread my time around learning this language and that language and then latest "in" fad language - ruby on rails
<0> great...you found a language you liked better....doesnt mean your compiler produces faster code ;)
<3> i won't eeeeeeeven bother to learn ruby, i have absolutely for ruby whatsoever
<2> Are executables compiled with -O2 supposed to be slower?
<3> waste of time for me, ruby is
<1> headmonkey: I don't use C++; you're the one saying you prefer one particular language, and that others ****.
<0> freeone3000, sometimes ;)
<0> jel, yes...they ****..they **** ram and they **** cpu cycles ;)
<5> lo_tek: I know no other language really, and it seems a nice all purpose one
<3> i like c because it's language is simple and sticks to the basics
<2> headmonkey: Ah, that would throw off my test results then... They have a diffrence of 0.002sec when -O2'd, 0.001 when not.
<1> headmonkey: again, wrong.
<6> http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/debian/
<3> c is sort of high level ***embly, lol
<1> lo_tek: precisely.
<2> C *is* high level ***embly...
<3> that's ok with me
<7> php is *really* high level ***embly
<3> i can always "function" a process or a routine out with c
<6> kestas: not really
<0> jel, im not wrong...i know other languages exist for solving different types of problems more elegantly, with less programmer time....but they dont produce code that runs faster...or smaller binaries....c allows me to maximize resources without thinking about it
<1> it's more useful to talk in language generations. C is normally called 2-and-a-half generation.
<6> headmonkey, jel: http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/ - language benchmarks
<7> benchmarks! theyll show us what's really 'faster'
<3> i've heard of that, jel, and it makes sense in a way to characterize languages like that
<6> kestas: benchmarks are the best kind of lies.
<2> Is there a guide to what 'generation' a language is?
<1> headmonkey: well, of course; that's what I said before. If you want maximal speed, you use ***embly, and spend years learning the processor and mainboard, etc. But, C is also a compromise.
<3> i stick with c because i've still yet to really master it and i figure it's better to totally master one language before jumping around to different langs
<6> freeone3000: there really is no firm agreement
<7> freeone3000: it's one of those bs buzzwords you come across
<1> freeone3000: probably on wikipedia somewhere. Start by searching for 4gl I guess
<5> Measure 'hello world' program startup time
<5> hehe
<0> jel, you keep bending my statements to an extreme...i dont want "AS MUCH SPEED AS POSSIBLE"
<3> if c is so bad, how come linux itself is written overwhelmingly in c??
<0> because thats what c was designed for ;)
<3> and continues to be to this day...
<1> headmonkey: only because you're accusing other languages of being somehow extreme. They're not. C++ is capable of very high performance, if you understand it. It has compromises, but only for good reasons.
<1> lo_tek: there's a lot of debate about that, actually :)
<7> lo_tek: noones saying C is bad, we're saying it's stupid to use it everywhere
<7> and it is
<0> jel, i never said the c++ language was slow...i said commonly available implementations and software coded in c++ is slower than c
<1> headmonkey: and that's incorrect
<0> jel, its not incorrect
<1> headmonkey: prove it, if you're making the accusation.
<2> So... Mesa would be faster if it was done in C?
<1> freeone3000: mesa?
<8> hi do you guys know how to change the key bindings in konqueror.......?
<2> jel: Really freakin awesome 3d thing.
<0> jel, ive already proven it to myself....feel free to prove me wrong to yourself and share your findings if you like
<9> why there is ## before linux xhannel
<2> kaushal: See freenode guidelines.
<1> freeone3000: ahh, that one. There are a lot of things called mesa :)
<9> i mean two has
<6> kaushal: because freenode has weird policies
<2> kaushal: Because we don't have Linus Torvalds here.
<6> kaushal: ## indicates an unofficial channel
<1> freeone3000: it depends. If you want the absolutely fastest 3D, you hard code it in ***embler, with no flexibility for even a different perspective. If you want a flexible environment with good speed and lots of future proofing and ease of new features, then c++ is a viable choice.
<5> holy cow, ruby comes out slowest everywhere hehe
<2> Future proofing?
<2> First time I've heard that one...
<5> 300x slower
<8> headmonkey: if you say C coding is fastest i disagree :P
<6> slpyhd: but it's so pretty!
<5> :)
<0> fuel, i never said that
<1> freeone3000: future proofing is a basic considerating of coding, as opposed to hard coding.
<3> slpyhd, is ruby a runtime or a compiled language?
<6> jel: hard coding is not the opposite of future proofing.
<5> interpreted
<0> fuel, its obviously faster to write code for perl or java or php and not bother with keeping track of memory usage....but the code doesnt execute faster
<2> jel: Ah. The thingy where you load stuff from external files, have language swapping, and other stuff enabling you to have features you don't already have...
<1> phogg: it's not a direct one-to-one mapping, but its pretty close.
<5> but peers are tested too
<2> headmonkey: Or write it in C++, also don't worry about the memory usage. shared_ptr ftw.
<8> well if you are concerned about execution code then go for ***embly language
<8> :-P
<1> freeone3000: possibly, mostly just good design, that doesn't lock you into the program as it is at conception/first run.
<6> firefox is unhappy with me: ** (Gecko:3228): CRITICAL **: eazel_engine_image_render: ***ertion `width > 0' failed
<1> anyway, I came here looking for a solution to an alsa problem, so I'll go off and keep looking :)
<0> freeone3000, i write it in c, and i handle memory usage efficiently and elegantly...i dont spread it all over the place and lose track of it....and that allows me to control when/where memory gets allocated, where it gets reused, and where it gets free'd and released back to the system....thats how you get high performance
<6> my only question is... why the hell is gecko calling a function from eazel?
<2> Which is what shared_ptr is for.
<2> It gets cleared when it goes out of scope.
<2> You can still delete it.
<0> i dont want it cleared when it goes out of scope...because its gonna get used again in another 200 milliseconds
<0> when another message arrives
<1> headmonkey: no, that's just good memory management in C. You can do all that in C++ too, in one place, without worrying about it in every function.
<1> sorry, don't mean to keep the debate going. Gotta go.
<0> jel, i do it in one place in c, i dont worry about it at all ;)
<2> shared_ptr foo = new string("hi"); do_thing(foo); do_other_thing(foo); do_third_thing(foo); where do_third_thing spawns off a new process.
<2> Now, where to you clear shared_ptr?
<10> what would be the best distro with some form of user interface to install and use on a 16 MB RAM system?
<0> freeone3000, if you dont know, then dont spawn a process ;)
<1> headmonkey: fair enough; C is a nice language; one of my favourites. Just consider all your options with an open mind, and don't believe everything you hear about C++ :)
<1> bye :)
<11> hey freeone3000
<6> cameronh: try damn small linux, maybe.
<0> i didnt just hear it...i witnessed it ;)
<12> hmm, question
<12> VMWare or Qemu?
<2> headmonkey: Part of the reason I use C++... easier to do concurrency.
<6> Uatec: if you can do it with qemu use qemu. If qemu wont do it, use vmware.
<9> Hi
<9> http://rafb.net/paste/results/CD2m7A47.html
<0> freeone3000, if you say so..i do concurrency just fine in c
<12> i'm just going to install windows 2000
<12> but which is better? which is faster?
<5> Uatec: with the kernel mdule they are equally fast
<7> Uatec: vmware of course
<7> if only
<2> I bet 'faster' is a race between a turtle and a snail.
Return to
#linux
or
Go to some related
logs:
gentoo yellow use flags
#css
PowerLinkGenerator
cpanel php_escape_html_entities
#debian
#awk
#php
gnome vrsion of dapper
#qemu
Fatal: Module megaraid2 not found
|
|