On May 31, 9:28 pm, jacob navia <j...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> OK I am running vista.
>
> My old machine died with a disk controller failure and I had to buy
> a new one. The new one was cheaper than the old one (1100 Euros vs
> 620 Euros) but had twice as much RAM (2GB), twice as much disk
> space (500GB) and twice as much processor (dual core AMD 64 bits)
>
> Within the Vista OS, I installed a Virtual PC with windows XP,
> to remember the old days.
>
> And then, I compiled the source code of lcc-win32 using the
> lcc-win32 compiler.
>
> Vista: 3.5 seconds
> Windows XP (running under Vista emulation) 4.4 seconds...
>
> Can you imagine?
>
> I wonder if I put a windows 98 emulation it will run actually
> faster than the Vista version even if it is running in a
> virtual PC!!!
>
> Everything is slower or at best the same speed. I start
> Microsoft C and it takes forever, just as it did under
> XP, but much slower than it did under MSDOS.
>
> Then, surfing the web I found (slashdot
pointer)http://hubpages.com/hub/_86_Mac_Plus_Vs_07_AMD_DualCore_You_Wont_Beli...
>
> Those guys measured the time it takes to do common tasks under
> a Mac of 1986 and a Vista/AMD dual core. The tasks are like
> doing an Excel spreadsheet, using Word, booting the system, etc.
>
> < QUOTE >
> Check out the results! For the functions that people use most often, the
> 1986 vintage Mac Plus beats the 2007 AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+: 9 tests to
> 8! Out of the 17 tests, the antique Mac won 53% of the time! Including a
> jaw-dropping 52 second whipping of the AMD from the time the Power
> button is pushed to the time the Desktop is up and usable.
> < END QUOTE >
>
> Yes, we wait longer for results today as we waited in 1986. The huge
> benefits that could be here with such a hardware speed are completely
> destroyed by the bloated software written in bloated languages that we
> run today.
>
> Why do I still use C?
>
> Precisely because of that. Because the language is still against the
> trend.
>
> Simple software, simple languages are now a thing of the past.
> Instead of progress we have regression. We have to run always
> faster to keep at the same speed.
>
> I am not implying that C is perfect or that I do not see the
> huge gaps in the language. What I am pointing at, is that the
> need for a simple and fast language is not in the present trends
> of software development.
>
> Actually this could be very good news for C. Obviously some
> applications exist that could be better in terms of speed. :-)
>
> But the problem with C is that is seen as obsolete. Most people
> at the company where I was in my last consulting jobs used C++
> and would laugh at anyone that would dare question their
> templated bloat.
>
> Who cares about speed they said. Who cares about disk space or
> memory consumption.
>
> Ram is cheap, disk is cheap. BLOAT IT!!!!!!
>
> A disk costs the same if it is spinning with 50GB or with
> 350GB inside. FILL IT!
>
> What now?
>
> There is a much simpler solution to templates. It is called
> aspect oriented programming.
>
> That is the subject of the next installment. The objective of this
> one is to point out that keeping things simple can be an
> objective *per se*. And to keep them simple and fats, a
> language without excessive bloat is needed.
>
> C (with some improvements) fits this description.
>
> jacob
Hehe. It's funny how people make conclusions like "Use Linux is FASTER
than Windows", "C is faster than C++" etc...
To me, it's all a matter of programming - and I don't think that C's
great value resides in it's speed. (is it even defined by the
standard? ;-) )
|
