OK, you are right, there seems to be really not much happening on both Blitz and Pooma homepages. And of course Fortran is oriented towards HPC, that's obvious, and is much easier than C++. What I wanted to say is, perhaps, that C++ _could potentially_ replace Fortran as the high performance computing language of choice, whereas Java still cannot and it does not seem that it will in near future. Therefore,in my opinion, people comparing Java to C++ in terms of performance are comparing apples to oranges.
Well, I agree with you. But what is the point? I mean C++ is _a low level language_ unlike Java, and will perhaps replace Fortran in coming future as the tool for (*cough*) hardcore numerics, feat you cannot expect from both Java and C#. Take a look here.
I would like answer your parent post at the same time. C++ is not an OO language. Currently emphasis is put on templates. Even programming patterns in C++ are not expressed in terms of classes, but rather in terms of templates. Please, comparing Java and the lot to C++ is like comparing apples to oranges.
C++ was designed to be the language of choice for modern operating systems, meant to replace C. This is main reason why every decision was made with efficiency in mind (no automatic virtual functions, no garbage collection, and, oh yes!, the infamous: pointers and goto). And of course C++ is fast. Maybe it loses by hair's breadth with C but surely wins with Java by great margin. And don't tell me about JIT, do some homework.
I think trying to incorporate C++ into Linux kernel is a good decision, giving more vitality to Linux and allowing it to differentiate better from the traditional UNIX systems - but that's only my 0.02 Euro.
AMD processors differ utterly from Intel processors; AMDs from architectural standpoint resemble the Alpha and, in some aspects, the POWER architecture rather than Intel. The assembler opcodes are translated in early stage into internal opcodes.
You are not 100% accurate. PowerPC is a subset of POWER + Multivec Engine (Single Instruction Multiple Data) by Motorola. This makes PowerPC better for non-server use.
My 0.02 Euro ;)
on
Optimizing Perl
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Well for me the greatest optimization is Perl itself, which allows to quickly write potent code. It spares the programmer's time, which costs much more than machine time. And as to optimization - well I think that a good optimizing compiler should do the job - you know I couldn't recognize my inefficient C++ code after running it through the Intel C++ compiler - it has improved soooo much!
The facts you write about were not known to me. However Pascal still sucks performance-wise (when you compare FreePascal to GCC and Intel C/C++ compiler) on x86. But I didn't try the GPC - here results should be comparable between Pascal and C because the same backend is used (in GCC front-end parses the desired language to some form of intermediate code somewhat similar to p-code, the rest is done in backend, or perhaps I'm wrong). And both languages are soooo... similar (especially in respect to translation to assembler).
What was at first the so called BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) by Bill Joy? Essentialy it was a Pascal Development System for UNIX bundled with UNIX itself. The improvements in UNIX were made by Joy in order to have an easy to use Pascal system. Don't believe? Look here.
Well Pascal was at that time really important.
Oh! I almost forgot. The most important point in UCSD Pascal System was not Pascal itself but the p-code. Well the p-code allowed programs to be compiled to some intermediary form resembling assembler called (guess what!) p-code, which could then be run with a help of a simple interpreter on any machine, thus giving us a machine independent code. Seems familiar?
Some of those issues have been solved with advent of the Turbo/Object Pascal by Borland which is currently the most used Pascal dialect (for example the FreePascal uses it) which has taken many things from C. However, a still worthy read.
Obviously adding any black-box code to a system with open source won't accomplish anything. I remeber hacking the OptimalJ by Compuware. It is a big application written in Java (so you can assume it to be Open Source - for instance use this), but it had some black-box module that has checked licenses and operating system. We were at the time OptimalJ licensee (so NO unlawful activity when copyright is considered) but wanted to run OptimalJ on FreeBSD (was 2xfaster than on Linux and 4xfaster than on Windows). Point was that this black-box module checked the operating system and made impossible for the program to start if it was not linux or windows. So we simply did circumvent the whole black-box module.
In my personal opinion if you want such regulations to have any effect both OpenSource and posession, use and selling of compilers/decompilers should be controlled by the state the same way as heavy arms/munitions. In particular it should be banned to own/use/sell/produce compilation tools, exept in the case you are a professional company having obtained a suitable license.
This is a comparison done on sparc platform between 64 and 32 bit modes highliting some performance issues. There are two most important things:
Amount of performance you'll gain/lose when switching to 64 bit mode depends on the application you intend to run (for instance big gains on SSH/SSL )
sizes of executables (programs, libs) are significantly larger in 64 bit mode
Of course in the case of AMD64 you will also gain something because of ability to use more registers, which is not the case with sparc.
And one more thing - do take a look at the Solaris 64-bit Developer's Guide. They have done the migration 32->64 long time ago. Learn from them.
Kinda strange, but DO YOU READ what you cite?
Quoting:
Last Wednesday Elmar Hucko, head of a government department in the
Ministry of Justice, announced at an event in Berlin that the Federal
Government would vote against the controversial software patent
directive of the Council of Ministers of the European Union
In fact you have not one but three ext3's: data=journal, data=writeback, data=ordered (look here for details) with different performance.
So if anyone tries filesystems comparison, please benchmark all three data modes of ext3 or, at least, provide information which one was used in the test.
To add my 0.02 EUR I would also like to see comparison of linux filesystems against *BSD ufs2 on the same machine. I know that the underlying operating system adds additional variables in the equation, but if you are interested in filesystem-oriented tasks the system's performance as a whole counts, not only its filesystem. I have seen something like this done already for RAIDs but I would like to see this for ordinary single drives (like ATA and SATA). Shall I have enough time I will perform such tests end of July, when my new hardware arrives.
Apache 2.0.x is tuned with multithreading in mind, whereas 1.3.x is not. This is root of problems with PHP which libraries are not all thread-safe. It also means that in order to fully benefit from Apache 2 you must have OS with multithreading support. Linux 2.6, FreeBSD 5-CURRENT or (cough!) MS Windows NT (2k, XP, 2003, etc.) or MacOS X (this one I'm not quite sure about - but it has Mach kernel so probably yes) or Solaris.
Applying existing law to Internet requires understanding of the technology that underlies Internet. And this might not be common among lawyers. So they try to find someone to help them with technology issues. And because they know no alternative to Windows, they think Microsoft is OK. And thus they accept laws designed by companies.
I have done traffic shaping with FreeBSD/ipfw2 and found out the hard way that some viruses that initiate a lot of connections can take up unproportional share of bandwith. For instance on of the users has had a virus that was making roughly about 700 thousand outbound connections daily, but not causing much traffic, since all connections were single UDP packets. After we have disconnected it from the hub the overall response time and transfer speeds for other computers have increased.
Apart from such queer incidents, which I think are inherent to all bandwith controlling schemes, including HW firewalls, I would definitely go for a Linux/FreeBSD/OpenBSD solution. The HW requirements are not high - we are running 100 MBps connection for about 500 users with a "legacy" double pentium II 400 computer.
I'm curious if anyone remebers the Linus - Tanenbaum: polemics.
Of course Mach is a great idea: WIndows NT/2000, NeXT, Mac OS X, OpenDarwin, etc. but Linux is not dying...
It did not work on any of my SuSE (same kernel as yours), Redhat and Gentoo systems. The only vulnerable ones were Debian boxen (sic!)
Strange... First this FreeBSD bug, now something wrong with Debian
I think generally "stealing" gives high growth rates. In medieval times people were stealing ideas easily - this led to renaissance, arts and science as we know them were born. Scientists "steal" ideas - they modify other's ideas. This is how the progress works. Patents that would prevent any "stealing" like the last try from NEC on idea of nanotubes, not some way of making them is against progress. Perhaps you disagre...
Slashdot Mirror
OK, you are right, there seems to be really not much happening on both Blitz and Pooma homepages. And of course Fortran is oriented towards HPC, that's obvious, and is much easier than C++. What I wanted to say is, perhaps, that C++ _could potentially_ replace Fortran as the high performance computing language of choice, whereas Java still cannot and it does not seem that it will in near future. Therefore ,in my opinion, people comparing Java to C++ in terms of performance are comparing apples to oranges.
Well, I agree with you. But what is the point? I mean C++ is _a low level language_ unlike Java, and will perhaps replace Fortran in coming future as the tool for (*cough*) hardcore numerics, feat you cannot expect from both Java and C#. Take a look here.
I would like answer your parent post at the same time. C++ is not an OO language. Currently emphasis is put on templates. Even programming patterns in C++ are not expressed in terms of classes, but rather in terms of templates. Please, comparing Java and the lot to C++ is like comparing apples to oranges.
C++ was designed to be the language of choice for modern operating systems, meant to replace C. This is main reason why every decision was made with efficiency in mind (no automatic virtual functions, no garbage collection, and, oh yes!, the infamous: pointers and goto). And of course C++ is fast. Maybe it loses by hair's breadth with C but surely wins with Java by great margin. And don't tell me about JIT, do some homework.
I think trying to incorporate C++ into Linux kernel is a good decision, giving more vitality to Linux and allowing it to differentiate better from the traditional UNIX systems - but that's only my 0.02 Euro.
AMD processors differ utterly from Intel processors; AMDs from architectural standpoint resemble the Alpha and, in some aspects, the POWER architecture rather than Intel. The assembler opcodes are translated in early stage into internal opcodes.
You are not 100% accurate. PowerPC is a subset of POWER + Multivec Engine (Single Instruction Multiple Data) by Motorola. This makes PowerPC better for non-server use.
Well for me the greatest optimization is Perl itself, which allows to quickly write potent code. It spares the programmer's time, which costs much more than machine time. And as to optimization - well I think that a good optimizing compiler should do the job - you know I couldn't recognize my inefficient C++ code after running it through the Intel C++ compiler - it has improved soooo much!
The facts you write about were not known to me. However Pascal still sucks performance-wise (when you compare FreePascal to GCC and Intel C/C++ compiler) on x86. But I didn't try the GPC - here results should be comparable between Pascal and C because the same backend is used (in GCC front-end parses the desired language to some form of intermediate code somewhat similar to p-code, the rest is done in backend, or perhaps I'm wrong). And both languages are soooo... similar (especially in respect to translation to assembler).
What was at first the so called BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) by Bill Joy? Essentialy it was a Pascal Development System for UNIX bundled with UNIX itself. The improvements in UNIX were made by Joy in order to have an easy to use Pascal system. Don't believe? Look here.
Well Pascal was at that time really important.
Oh! I almost forgot. The most important point in UCSD Pascal System was not Pascal itself but the p-code. Well the p-code allowed programs to be compiled to some intermediary form resembling assembler called (guess what!) p-code, which could then be run with a help of a simple interpreter on any machine, thus giving us a machine independent code. Seems familiar?
Some of those issues have been solved with advent of the Turbo/Object Pascal by Borland which is currently the most used Pascal dialect (for example the FreePascal uses it) which has taken many things from C. However, a still worthy read.
Obviously adding any black-box code to a system with open source won't accomplish anything. I remeber hacking the OptimalJ by Compuware. It is a big application written in Java (so you can assume it to be Open Source - for instance use this), but it had some black-box module that has checked licenses and operating system. We were at the time OptimalJ licensee (so NO unlawful activity when copyright is considered) but wanted to run OptimalJ on FreeBSD (was 2xfaster than on Linux and 4xfaster than on Windows). Point was that this black-box module checked the operating system and made impossible for the program to start if it was not linux or windows. So we simply did circumvent the whole black-box module.
In my personal opinion if you want such regulations to have any effect both OpenSource and posession, use and selling of compilers/decompilers should be controlled by the state the same way as heavy arms/munitions. In particular it should be banned to own/use/sell/produce compilation tools, exept in the case you are a professional company having obtained a suitable license.
- Amount of performance you'll gain/lose when switching to 64 bit mode depends on the application you intend to run (for instance big gains on SSH/SSL )
- sizes of executables (programs, libs) are significantly larger in 64 bit mode
Of course in the case of AMD64 you will also gain something because of ability to use more registers, which is not the case with sparc.And one more thing - do take a look at the Solaris 64-bit Developer's Guide. They have done the migration 32->64 long time ago. Learn from them.
Kinda strange, but DO YOU READ what you cite?
Quoting:
Last Wednesday Elmar Hucko, head of a government department in the Ministry of Justice, announced at an event in Berlin that the Federal Government would vote against the controversial software patent directive of the Council of Ministers of the European Union
Ok, this thread is duplicated but think of my pleasure to both post and moderate in the same virtual thread!
In fact you have not one but three ext3's: data=journal, data=writeback, data=ordered (look here for details) with different performance.
So if anyone tries filesystems comparison, please benchmark all three data modes of ext3 or, at least, provide information which one was used in the test.
To add my 0.02 EUR I would also like to see comparison of linux filesystems against *BSD ufs2 on the same machine. I know that the underlying operating system adds additional variables in the equation, but if you are interested in filesystem-oriented tasks the system's performance as a whole counts, not only its filesystem. I have seen something like this done already for RAIDs but I would like to see this for ordinary single drives (like ATA and SATA). Shall I have enough time I will perform such tests end of July, when my new hardware arrives.
Apache 2.0.x is tuned with multithreading in mind, whereas 1.3.x is not. This is root of problems with PHP which libraries are not all thread-safe. It also means that in order to fully benefit from Apache 2 you must have OS with multithreading support. Linux 2.6, FreeBSD 5-CURRENT or (cough!) MS Windows NT (2k, XP, 2003, etc.) or MacOS X (this one I'm not quite sure about - but it has Mach kernel so probably yes) or Solaris.
Imagine this running Windows.
Applying existing law to Internet requires understanding of the technology that underlies Internet. And this might not be common among lawyers. So they try to find someone to help them with technology issues. And because they know no alternative to Windows, they think Microsoft is OK. And thus they accept laws designed by companies.
I have done traffic shaping with FreeBSD/ipfw2 and found out the hard way that some viruses that initiate a lot of connections can take up unproportional share of bandwith. For instance on of the users has had a virus that was making roughly about 700 thousand outbound connections daily, but not causing much traffic, since all connections were single UDP packets. After we have disconnected it from the hub the overall response time and transfer speeds for other computers have increased.
Apart from such queer incidents, which I think are inherent to all bandwith controlling schemes, including HW firewalls, I would definitely go for a Linux/FreeBSD/OpenBSD solution. The HW requirements are not high - we are running 100 MBps connection for about 500 users with a "legacy" double pentium II 400 computer.
I'm curious if anyone remebers the Linus - Tanenbaum: polemics.
Of course Mach is a great idea: WIndows NT/2000, NeXT, Mac OS X, OpenDarwin, etc. but Linux is not dying...
It did not work on any of my SuSE (same kernel as yours), Redhat and Gentoo systems. The only vulnerable ones were Debian boxen (sic!)
Strange... First this FreeBSD bug, now something wrong with Debian
Oh really? I am running 2.4.25 on my all systems for two weeks already - since the first advisory. Patch or be patched.
I think generally "stealing" gives high growth rates. In medieval times people were stealing ideas easily - this led to renaissance, arts and science as we know them were born. Scientists "steal" ideas - they modify other's ideas. This is how the progress works. Patents that would prevent any "stealing" like the last try from NEC on idea of nanotubes, not some way of making them is against progress. Perhaps you disagre...
Should not Red Hat terminate EV1 license as Fyodor did with SCO?
Jeez, I like being both pragmatic and extreme when I use JUnit.