> From: Reggie Bautista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Computer Languages [was: Your Favorite SciFi/Fantasy Movie
Soundtrack?]
> Date: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 7:09 PM
>
> I wrote:
> > > Just out of curiosity -- once these examples are both compiled, will
> >they
> > > take up an equivalent amount of space and/or take an equivalent amount
> >of
> > > time to run?
>
> The Fool replied:
> >They will create the _same_ machine code.
>
> Thanks. I kind of thought so, but I figured with so much expertise on the
> list, why not ask? :-)
Technically I borrowed it from the C++ compiler output that it spat out.
> Me again:
> > > Or more generally, when programming languages include shorter ways of
> >doing
> > > things that previous languages, how much of that comes from the writers
> >of
> > > the newer languages having a better understanding of how to do things,
> >and
> > > how much comes from shortcuts written into the newer language that make
> >
> > > coding easier, but make no actual difference after compilation?
>
> The Fool again:
> >You mean something like this:
> >
> >#define MB(x,y,z,w,q) MB+((z*(q+1)*(w+1))+(y*(w+1))+x)
> >
> >#define XXX(x,y,z) ((*(m.MB((x),(y),(z),(h->X),(h->Y)))))
> >
> >and later in the code just say
> >
> >a.
> >
> >XXX(3,14,15);
> >
> >which is just the same as putting
> >
> >b.
> >
> >((*(m.MB+(((z)*((h->Y)+1)*((h->X)+1))+((y)*((h->X)+1))+(x))))))
or
something similar to this:
00b49 8b 45 f0 mov eax, DWORD PTR _this$[ebp]
00b4c 33 c9 xor ecx, ecx
00b4e 66 8b 48 22 mov cx, WORD PTR [eax+34]
00b52 8b 55 f0 mov edx, DWORD PTR _this$[ebp]
00b55 0f bf 42 4a movsx eax, WORD PTR [edx+74]
00b59 03 45 ec add eax, DWORD PTR _i$[ebp]
00b5c 33 d2 xor edx, edx
00b5e 8b 55 f0 mov edx, DWORD PTR _this$[ebp]
00b61 0f bf 52 4c movsx edx, WORD PTR [edx+76]
00b65 03 c1 add eax, ecx
00b67 03 d0 add edx, eax
00b69 33 c0 xor eax, eax
00b6b 8b 45 f0 mov eax, DWORD PTR _this$[ebp]
00b6e 8b 48 08 mov ecx, DWORD PTR [eax+8]
00b71 33 c0 xor eax, eax
00b73 66 8b 41 02 mov ax, WORD PTR [ecx+2]
00b77 83 c0 01 add eax, 1
00b7a 0f af d0 imul edx, eax
00b7d 8b 4d f0 mov ecx, DWORD PTR _this$[ebp]
00b80 33 c0 xor eax, eax
00b82 66 8b 41 20 mov ax, WORD PTR [ecx+32]
00b86 8b 4d f0 mov ecx, DWORD PTR _this$[ebp]
00b89 0f bf 49 4e movsx ecx, WORD PTR [ecx+78]
00b8d 03 c1 add eax, ecx
00b8f 8b 4d f0 mov ecx, DWORD PTR _this$[ebp]
00b92 0f bf 49 50 movsx ecx, WORD PTR [ecx+80]
00b96 03 c1 add eax, ecx
00b98 03 55 e0 add edx, DWORD PTR _j$40474[ebp]
00b9b 03 c2 add eax, edx
00b9d 33 d2 xor edx, edx
00b9f 8b 55 f0 mov edx, DWORD PTR _this$[ebp]
00ba2 8b 4a 0c mov ecx, DWORD PTR [edx+12]
00ba5 33 d2 xor edx, edx
00ba7 8a 14 01 mov dl, BYTE PTR [ecx+eax]
00baa 83 ea 01 sub edx, 1
00bad 8b 45 f0 mov eax, DWORD PTR _this$[ebp]
00bb0 89 90 d8 00 00
00 mov DWORD PTR [eax+216], edx
> >Which is essentially a calculation for a pointer to specific integer of
> >data in a 3 dimensional array [i.e. Matrix], (they compile to the same
> >code);
> >
> >Which one do you want to work with hundreds of times in a program, a. or
> >b.?
>
> Actually, I was more looking for the info you gave in your first answer
> above. I certainly understand and agree that the less you have to type
> within a given language, the better, and with what little coding I do, I
> definitely use macros and functions as much as possible. I was just
> checking to make certain that the same kind of thing done in different
> languages will generally compile to the same machine code, as you say
above,
> or if any recent compilers had found any shortcuts within machine code
> itself. You answered that question nicely above.
That is in NO way _optimised_, which is why I used it as an example.
Optimized code would probably seem very differernt. That was a small piece
of code.
> I haven't done much coding in... I guess it's been at least ten years. I'm
> just getting back into it now, and have another question for you or anyone
> else. Assuming that I am going to learn both C++ and Java, which would you
> recommend learning first? I have previous experience with BASIC, FORTRAN,
> COBOL, and Pascal, but as I said, it's been a while. I've been toying a
> little lately with both Java and C++, trying to teach myself, but if I dive
> full bore gung ho into one first, then the other, what order would you
> recommend? I have no problems with object-oriented programming and have
> done some pseudo-code with a friend of mine who is just about to graduate
> from DeVry, so learning either will really just be about learning the
syntax
> of the language, not about programming concepts in general.
Java is the spawn of satan, the ultimate evil.
Get a grasp of C. Learn how pointers work. Learn it again. Learn it again.
Then learn C++. There are 36 key words in C. It's not that difficult.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
