Re:Don't talk to me about Boost
on
Demise of C++?
·
· Score: 1
"You could generate the same instructions in C, but you wouldn't."
Says who? His sorting example uses qsort. Well of course it'll be slower than the STL because it uses function pointers. All he's proving is a *generic* function in C is slower than *generics* in C++. Well duh. As you say its run time vs compile time. However, if you *explicitly* wrote a version of the algorithm for *every* type you wanted to sort in C (which is what C++ templates do behind the scenes) you'd find it would be just as fast. At the end of the day theres only so many ways you can translate a sorting algorithm into assembler.
The point is you should always optimise your code within reason. Theres no justification in saying "well the API/syscall is slower than anything I can write so I won't bother" because what happens if 2 years down the road someone speeds that API up 10x and then your code is recompiled and *it* becomes the bottleneck?
I'm a C++ coder and I hate it too
on
Demise of C++?
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Its a god awful dogs dinner of a language. Whatever Stroustrup was smoking when he designed the syntax I'm sure its illegal , and if its not it should be. If you compare C++ syntax to a language such as D (which is also C compatable so THAT excuse is out the window) you realise what a mess C++ really is.
Don't talk to me about Boost
on
Demise of C++?
·
· Score: 1
A horrid kludge that tries to turn C++ into a completely different language. If I wanted a different language I'd use one. Plus it tends to be a solution for problems that don't exist.
"would be nearly impossible to duplicate in C with the same kind of efficiency"
BS. Unless you think theres some sort of magical assembly language that a C++ compiler can generate than a C compiled couldn't.
Re:It will be a happy day...
on
Demise of C++?
·
· Score: 1
I agree with most of what you say except for garbage collection. Since I do low level programming I want memory to be free'd when *I* request it, not when the runtime (which would be extra overhead too) thinks it should be done. The problem is C++ is trying to be all things to all men, as low level as C and as high level as something such as python. Problem is what you end up with is a rather unsatisfying smelly stew.
"Do you think running the binary you built from AnyOldSourceTarball off the net without doing a detailed analysis of the source code is significantly safer?"
Yes, because although complex exploits will probably be well hidden, grepping for obvious things such as "rmdir" or "unlink" etc and trying to figure out what they're going to do isn't too hard. I'm not saying I'd do this with every app , but if I have any suspicions at least I have this option. With a binary I don't.
"Hehe... You *really* shouldn't use Windows, then."
I don't. You think running linux protects you if you run AnyOldBinary off the net without checking it first? It can still wipe your home directory if nothing else.
"What he wants is something like apt-get that allows you to easily pick an app you want to have installed, then let the tools download, install and configure it for you automatically in a single step"
When I've used apt-get its been more trouble than its worth. Give me a.tgz any day.
I live not far from Sellafield in the UK. I would suggest you go read up on that before you start spouting the standard issue muesli muncher propaganda. And as for remote handling gear , uh, what you think other areas of nuclear operation such as the handling the rods is done by hand?? Idiot.
"Once again, you have to download the binaries and install manually, by double-clicking on the install file"
Call me old fashioned, call me Mr-I-Want-To-Avoid-Trojans, but I don't actually like systems that download binaries AND run them without prompting you. When MS does something like this everyone jumps up and down but this guy seems to think it would be a good thing for Linux to exhibit this sort of behaviour.
A) Do you want to take the small risk of radioactive waste leaking into the
enviroment in a few hundred years time which with an extra few centuries
of technology our descendents probably won't have an issue cleaning up anyway?
or
B) Do you want to take the very large risk of continuing using fossil fuels
creating CO2 and sending the climate on a rollercoaster to hell and us along
with it?
Ha ha ha. Yeah , all those coal plants in eastern europe had managers just jumping up and down to fit those filters and buy expensive "clean" coal as soon as the russians retreated.
Not if the electricity required to do it comes from a nuclear plant. Besides which , last time I looked mining, transporting and refining fossil fuels took energy too.
"One of the estimates for the amount of fuel left in easlily mineable conditions would give us nuclear power for some 50 years or so"
I would suggest you go read up on nuclear fuel reprocessing.
"Peak sun is in my personal guess still not for another 3.5 billion years."
Yeah , solar cells will work well in the artic circle in winter.
If we don't reduce C02 emissions our grandkids will have more important things to worry about than a theoretical risk of a nuclear leak. Like for example famine and catastrophy caused by a climate gone out of control.
"The worst mess oil or coal ever caused people can walk on"
Yeah , that and half a trillion tons of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere over the last few hundred years.
"Nuclear material doesn't cycle out of the environment."
It doesn't need to. It radiactively decays. Besides which natural granite is more radioactive than a lot of nuclear waste sites.
"Everyone that is pronuclear power gets to store a drum in their back yard. Just remember it's perfectly safe and you'll be just find"
So long as people like you who love fossile fuels get to have a oil refinery and coal mine in your back yard.
Congratulations for being a stereotypical anti-nuclear moron with your half arsed knee jerk style arguments.
You're shouting into the wind. While you're right (IMO) the majority of slavering techno heads that go for this sort of stuff don't have much contact with the day to day computing world , so don't really have a clue what 99% of users want or need.
"Dumping the problem into the lap of the application programmers isn't leveraging anything very effectively."
Not true. Sometimes there is no way for an OS (or CPU core) to know what the app programmer intended , or if it does try and guess it could well get it wrong. Sometimes the app coder MUST explictely specify how his app threads are to run to get the best performance.
"Big paradigm shifts that would completely re-orient computing are impossible in the current market."
Perhaps because they're not required. Ever thought of that? Remember The Connection Machine and how it was the advanced guard of mega parallel machines using simple CPUs? Yeah , well, that did well didn't it. And that was back in the late 80s , never mind now.
"Data management is what computers do, sport. Better, faster and more convenient data management is why there's a computer industry at all."
Data management is PART of what computers do. Theres not much point being able to manage data if you can't do anything with it.
"Dumping the problem into the application developer's lap was how MS-DOS did it, not how modern operating systems do it, and certainly not how next generation OS projects will do it."
Funnily enough , it you want ultimate performance out of a given piece of hardware the less layers you have (read the OS) between app and hardware the faster you're problem will be solved. So for extreme numerical aupercomputer apps you'll find a lot of people head back the MS-DOS days approach.
Incidentaly , do you think "leveraging" sounds much cooler than "using" ? It doesn't. It makes you sound like a marketing moron.
How many people need the "feature set" of a VoIP phone? What I want is something cheap and reliable. Basically a cheap analogue amp I plug into a socket in the wall. What I *dont* want is some friggin PC-in-a-box that has to have a full OS + network stack + associated unreliability and hackability just to do what $2 worth of components from radio shack can do just as well.
For backbone providers perhaps VoIP is a good idea as they can merge data and voice. For me as a consumer is a problem looking for a solution since I'm not interested in beeing "cool" or "bleeding edge". I just want a phone that works, works well, cheaply, reliably and efficiently.
... as companies find out that theres no such thing as a free lunch and they WILL have to pay for it eventually. Plus the voice quality on external lines is usually frankly appalling compared to normal phone lines. VoIP IMO is the emporers latest clothing collection though I await to be proven wrong.
Depends what area you want to go into. OO, SOAP, HTML, XML etc knowledge is worth buttons if you want to be employed as a device driver writer. Better to know about DMA, interrupt latencies, clocking and so forth. Even in the area I work in (financials programming) , I only use 2 of the above - OO and XML - and the XML is a cherry on the cake, I didn't get employed because of it plus any jackass can pick up XML in 30 minutes.
Slashdot Mirror
man strip.
Pillock.
Hello Mr Gates. Hows Office 2007 coming on?
"You could generate the same instructions in C, but you wouldn't."
Says who? His sorting example uses qsort. Well of course it'll be slower
than the STL because it uses function pointers. All he's proving is a
*generic* function in C is slower than *generics* in C++. Well duh.
As you say its run time vs compile time. However, if you *explicitly*
wrote a version of the algorithm for *every* type you wanted to sort
in C (which is what C++ templates do behind the scenes) you'd find it
would be just as fast. At the end of the day theres only so many ways
you can translate a sorting algorithm into assembler.
They use a dissambler you moron. I've no intention of doing that if I can
look at some source code.
Oh wow , I can print out the symbol table in some rough and ready format!
Well jee! And that helps me how , in deducing the program logic exactly?
The point is you should always optimise your code within reason. Theres no
justification in saying "well the API/syscall is slower than anything I can
write so I won't bother" because what happens if 2 years down the road
someone speeds that API up 10x and then your code is recompiled and *it*
becomes the bottleneck?
Its a god awful dogs dinner of a language. Whatever Stroustrup was
smoking when he designed the syntax I'm sure its illegal , and if
its not it should be. If you compare C++ syntax to a language such as
D (which is also C compatable so THAT excuse is out the window) you realise
what a mess C++ really is.
A horrid kludge that tries to turn C++ into a completely different
language. If I wanted a different language I'd use one. Plus it tends
to be a solution for problems that don't exist.
"would be nearly impossible to duplicate in C with the same kind of efficiency"
BS. Unless you think theres some sort of magical assembly language that
a C++ compiler can generate than a C compiled couldn't.
I agree with most of what you say except for garbage collection. Since I
do low level programming I want memory to be free'd when *I* request it,
not when the runtime (which would be extra overhead too) thinks it should
be done. The problem is C++ is trying to be all things to all men, as low
level as C and as high level as something such as python. Problem is what
you end up with is a rather unsatisfying smelly stew.
Ah , the old "because we can't optimise 100% why bother optimising at all"
argument. You should apply to work at Microsoft.
"Do you think running the binary you built from AnyOldSourceTarball off the net without doing a detailed analysis of the source code is significantly safer?"
Yes, because although complex exploits will probably be well hidden, grepping
for obvious things such as "rmdir" or "unlink" etc and trying to figure out
what they're going to do isn't too hard. I'm not saying I'd do this with every
app , but if I have any suspicions at least I have this option. With a binary
I don't.
Install ALL of my system using apt-get? On dial-up?? What is this , comedians night?
"Hehe... You *really* shouldn't use Windows, then."
.tgz any day.
I don't. You think running linux protects you if you run AnyOldBinary
off the net without checking it first? It can still wipe your home
directory if nothing else.
"What he wants is something like apt-get that allows you to easily pick an app you want to have installed, then let the tools download, install and configure it for you automatically in a single step"
When I've used apt-get its been more trouble than its worth. Give me
a
I live not far from Sellafield in the UK. I would suggest you go read
up on that before you start spouting the standard issue muesli muncher
propaganda. And as for remote handling gear , uh, what you think other
areas of nuclear operation such as the handling the rods is done
by hand?? Idiot.
"Once again, you have to download the binaries and install manually, by double-clicking on the install file"
Call me old fashioned, call me Mr-I-Want-To-Avoid-Trojans, but I don't
actually like systems that download binaries AND run them without
prompting you. When MS does something like this everyone jumps up and
down but this guy seems to think it would be a good thing for Linux to
exhibit this sort of behaviour.
Err , no, it isn't.
The nuclear issue can be summarised thus:
A) Do you want to take the small risk of radioactive waste leaking into the
enviroment in a few hundred years time which with an extra few centuries
of technology our descendents probably won't have an issue cleaning up anyway?
or
B) Do you want to take the very large risk of continuing using fossil fuels
creating CO2 and sending the climate on a rollercoaster to hell and us along
with it?
Seems to me its a fairly simple choice.
Ha ha ha. Yeah , all those coal plants in eastern europe had managers just
jumping up and down to fit those filters and buy expensive "clean" coal as
soon as the russians retreated.
Get a clue.
"This processing does generate CO2."
Not if the electricity required to do it comes from a nuclear plant.
Besides which , last time I looked mining, transporting and refining
fossil fuels took energy too.
"One of the estimates for the amount of fuel left in easlily mineable conditions would give us nuclear power for some 50 years or so"
I would suggest you go read up on nuclear fuel reprocessing.
"Peak sun is in my personal guess still not for another 3.5 billion years."
Yeah , solar cells will work well in the artic circle in winter.
"Ask our great grandkids how cheap it is?"
If we don't reduce C02 emissions our grandkids will have more important
things to worry about than a theoretical risk of a nuclear leak. Like
for example famine and catastrophy caused by a climate gone out of control.
"The worst mess oil or coal ever caused people can walk on"
Yeah , that and half a trillion tons of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere
over the last few hundred years.
"Nuclear material doesn't cycle out of the environment."
It doesn't need to. It radiactively decays. Besides which natural granite is more
radioactive than a lot of nuclear waste sites.
"Everyone that is pronuclear power gets to store a drum in their back yard. Just remember it's perfectly safe and you'll be just find"
So long as people like you who love fossile fuels get to have a oil refinery
and coal mine in your back yard.
Congratulations for being a stereotypical anti-nuclear moron with your half
arsed knee jerk style arguments.
You're shouting into the wind. While you're right (IMO) the majority of
slavering techno heads that go for this sort of stuff don't have much
contact with the day to day computing world , so don't really have a clue
what 99% of users want or need.
"Dumping the problem into the lap of the application programmers isn't leveraging anything very effectively."
Not true. Sometimes there is no way for an OS (or CPU core) to know
what the app programmer intended , or if it does try and guess it
could well get it wrong. Sometimes the app coder MUST explictely
specify how his app threads are to run to get the best performance.
"Big paradigm shifts that would completely re-orient computing are impossible in the current market."
Perhaps because they're not required. Ever thought of that? Remember
The Connection Machine and how it was the advanced guard of mega
parallel machines using simple CPUs? Yeah , well, that did well didn't
it. And that was back in the late 80s , never mind now.
"Data management is what computers do, sport. Better, faster and more convenient data management is why there's a computer industry at all."
Data management is PART of what computers do. Theres not much point
being able to manage data if you can't do anything with it.
"Dumping the problem into the application developer's lap was how MS-DOS did it, not how modern operating systems do it, and certainly not how next generation OS projects will do it."
Funnily enough , it you want ultimate performance out of a given
piece of hardware the less layers you have (read the OS) between
app and hardware the faster you're problem will be solved. So for
extreme numerical aupercomputer apps you'll find a lot of people head
back the MS-DOS days approach.
Incidentaly , do you think "leveraging" sounds much cooler than
"using" ? It doesn't. It makes you sound like a marketing moron.
How many people need the "feature set" of a VoIP phone? What I want is something cheap and reliable. Basically a cheap analogue amp I plug into a
socket in the wall. What I *dont* want is some friggin PC-in-a-box that
has to have a full OS + network stack + associated unreliability and
hackability just to do what $2 worth of components from radio shack can do
just as well.
For backbone providers perhaps VoIP is a good idea as they can merge
data and voice. For me as a consumer is a problem looking for a solution
since I'm not interested in beeing "cool" or "bleeding edge". I just want
a phone that works, works well, cheaply, reliably and efficiently.
Cookies are easy to delete. This is hardly a "Your Rights Online" issue. Jeez.
... as companies find out that theres no such thing as a free lunch and they WILL have to pay for it eventually. Plus the voice quality on external lines is usually frankly appalling compared to normal phone lines. VoIP IMO is the emporers latest clothing collection though I await to be proven wrong.
Depends what area you want to go into. OO, SOAP, HTML, XML etc knowledge is worth buttons if you want to be employed as a device driver writer. Better to know about DMA, interrupt latencies, clocking and so forth. Even in the area I work in (financials programming) , I only use 2 of the above - OO and XML - and the XML is a cherry on the cake, I didn't get employed because of it plus any jackass can pick up XML in 30 minutes.