On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 01:03:47PM -0400, Geoffrey Alan Washburn wrote: > No it's because modern processors require complex optimizations to > obtain optimal performance. So maybe you should be complaining to > computer architects. Furthermore, have you ever written a interpreter > or compiler? Do you really know what kind of complexity goes into one? > Have you written an operating system kernel?
Actually, I wonder, why the tcc (http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/tcc/) compiler for instance produces faster code (through less optimizations), in much lesser time (compiled a linux kernel on a reference machine in <20s), than gcc? Beside having a binary in the end which is much smaller than binaries compiled with -Os flag in gcc? There is something seriously wrong. > I'm not advocating Web Services as a paragon of abstraction, but > clearly you seem to have not been educated on the concept of irreducible > or Kolmogorov complexity. Some things are just complex. Period. That's not the point. I agree that some things are really complex. However, the majority of software does not need to be complex, because the usual problems solved are not complex. > >I doubt that I can do fewer data abstraction with C than withany other > >language. What can't I do with C, but with another language? > > And this is exactly because you are ignorant. A common problem with > open source software developers. Try educating yourself; very little > software should be written in C. No this is because C is turing complete. My statement wasn't intended to imply that C is the best choice for everything, but it should point out, that the language is less important than the concepts. > Again, this shows an considerable lack of understanding about > different models of computation. Some problems are significantly easier > when provided with the correct paradigm. Furthermore, different models > of computation allow for much better simpler/compilers. My guess is > that you've never actually tried programming in anything except for > poorly designed effectful-imperative languages. I claim that I developed small stuff in Prolog, Haskell, and ocaml, but most stuff I did in Pascal, Ada, Java, C++ and C. Thus I really think much more in imperative ways than functional ones... And I'd like to do new stuff in other languages. > So you're telling me that gcc, ghc, Linux, *BSD, etc. are complete > failures? Bad ideals at least. > Anyway, your response was pretty much what I expected, so > I'm not going to bother debating further. Most open source > developers are completely clueless when it comes to > choosing the right tools for the job. Well, I'm open minded. Tell me for following software projects the right tools in your opinion: Text editor : IRC client : X Terminal : X Window Manager: Wiki app : Thanks in advance. Regards, -- Anselm R. Garbe ><>< www.ebrag.de ><>< GPG key: 0D73F361 _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://wmii.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/wmii
