Hi
12 Oct 2000, Clarence Verge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> CV> It is a million times more friendly than Linux.
>> Could you explain this ??
>> I personally find that Linux is VERY friendly.
>> (the only problem is that at first the many options are irritating
>> ... but I have to admit that I like THAT way much better, as the M$
>> way to not even make those options available to the user.)
CV> My experience with Linux has been limited to relatively small
CV> hand-made distros like Dragon and Pygmy.
Than you shouldn't generalize ...
CV> I found certain conventions (directories, filenames, etc) to be quite
CV> counter-intuitive. That is, I didn't like it.
this can happen ... but it is a subjective thing ....
;)
>> CV> Because it was written in "C" it is large and runs at creeping
>> CV> speed.:(
>> Hmmm ... what would be faster than C (expect assembler/machine
>> language) ?
CV> What other useful language is there ? (expect assembler/machine
CV> language)
There are many ... it allways depends on what you want to do.
And to be honest direct assembler is not useable for some (most) projects.
It is absolutely NOT portable, debugging is extremely hard.
Project size is extremely limited.
You can use high level languages, and in some small, time critical part use
handoptimized assemblercode.
With the new generation CPUs even that will not be possible, because
handmade code will be slower than C compiled !!!!
(they rely on certain conditions to execute code fast as hell, if these
conditions are not met, than code runs very slow ....)
They rely on the compiler for correct lineup.
(and there are IMHO also directives to help jump prediction .... and other
things)
CV> Good "C" code almost never exists outside of the laboratory or some
CV> special competition.
imagine a company who makes a product for ix86 computers.
The marketing section tells you that you will make a fortune if you are
able to port your product for the MAC ....
With assemble you will have developing costs that are nearly equal to the
costs for the first developement !!!!
With C the costs are nearly neglectable ....
CV> As for the so-called optimizing features of modern compilers, IF such
CV> happen to be used they can only convert monkey code to baboon grade.
they take into consideration the specialities of certain processors, make
loop unrolling and many other things.
no question that nowadays handoptimized assembler is much faster ...
but it takes 100+ times to write it ....
CV> You say ASM is only twice as fast as "good C". I say ASM is three
CV> times as fast as any "C" you are using every day. (Windows 9x)
and now imagine how many 'issues' (read bugs) there would be in win95 if it
was written entirely in assembler !!!
(and now the same procedure for Win2k)
>> With the new 64 bit generation CPUs from AMD and Intel the
>> Optimization will be so complex that it will be very hard to produce
>> code that is equally fast as the result of a well optimizing C
>> compiler !
CV> In the lab, still.;-)
not for long ... they should come out in less than 12 months !
CV> - Clarence Verge
CU, Ricsi
--
Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ICQ: 7659421] {RSA-PGP Key avail.}
-=> Life is an onion and one peels it crying <=-
