>>3
Too bad the process of writing code in whatever you use is as slow as fuck. Write->compile->diagnose-error->compile->diagnose-error->compile->run->crash was outmoded in the 50s. What's your excuse?
>>4
So what's the alternative? Lisp/Scheme? No practical way to deliver an application to the consumer. Smalltalk? Ditto. Python/Ruby? Interpreter overhead. D? Absolutely no industry acceptance, standard controlled by one company. Haskell? Poor libraries. Any of the .NET failure? Windows only. Java? Ha!
C and C++ win in OS and desktop programming. Everything else is for internal use, science, or the web.
>>5
Hope you enjoy Enterprise Quality substandard functionality
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-24 20:41 ID:LcJMLBnb
>>8
Hey, I resemble that remark. It's good enough for government use, it should be good enough for anyone.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-24 20:41 ID:6TLJEX0W
>>6
There aren't many applications where speed is critical. In a business, the only non-specialized apps where speed is critical lies in databases and networking latency/throughput.
>>13
I'll spell it out for you. ., e, x, e. If your software doesn't ship as an exey (ELF, .app), your language is inadequate.
Lisp doesn't produce native code. Some implementations like sbcl can generate a .exe, but they do that by bundling the entire runtime. I don't want to distribute my tiny freeware apps with dozens of extra megabytes packed on.
>>18
re: post: prime example of how much linux users fail
re: site: lol, half of the positives being thanks to linux being to programs as ps3 is to games
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-24 23:24 ID:AsqOkA8s
C is superior.
Linus agreed. Don't bother him about it.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-24 23:25 ID:+oxClnZ8
THERE IS NOTHING TO DISCUSS. THIS IS SIMPLE FACT.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-25 2:45 ID:QBzUiZWS
Assembler is the only real programming language. C is slow as fuck, and despite its name does NOT expose the carry flag, leading to more slow as fuck boundary checking and bit manipulation.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-25 2:46 ID:KV0a14Z6
Too badasembler is slow as fuck
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-25 3:26 ID:6fTqwfy/
>>24
Assembler is not standardized, so it could hardly be considered a "language". That aside, I always review how the compiler assembles my code before running it. Compilers rarely appreciate the grand conception of enterprise programmers and many overuse the edx register.
clib overhead? There is no comparison between compiled in library objects and an executed interpreter. Your shit understanding of how things work is what makes languages like python A Very Bad Thing.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-25 9:04 ID:AMYE4vBD
>>30
No, it's not like I don't understand the difference. I was just making fun of you because anything but assembly/machine language with no OS has overhead. Running in a virtual machine vs. running directly in a process doesn't make a difference, other than the former being slower but much more interesting due to your introspection, hacking and security possibilities.
>>14
I'm not sure how much I trust someone who doesn't understand what "native code" means.
``Steel Bank Common Lisp (SBCL) is an open source (free software) compiler and runtime system for ANSI Common Lisp. It provides an interactive environment including an integrated native compiler...''
lol@u
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-25 10:23 ID:I9w62COU
Im not trolling btw , microcode can do anything your shitty ASM can, only faster, better and harder
Im not trolling btw , microcode can do anything your shitty ASM can, only faster, better and harder
Im not trolling btw , microcode can do anything your shitty ASM can, only faster, better and harder
Im not trolling btw , microcode can do anything your shitty ASM can, only faster, better and harder
I'm OMG OPTIMIZED guy. The language I use does not matter. I design my own processors for every task. Last time I needed to sort my shopping list I designed a chip and got it made in only 15 months, for only $20000, and now my shopping list sorter is the fastest ever! Faster than Python, faster than SBCL, faster than C, faster than assembly, faster than fucking microcode! OMG OPTIMIZED!!!!!!!!! FAPFAPFAPFAP
We may also need to see what is on your shopping list.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-25 13:32 ID:YJSbUHAR
CCcCc cCcccccc Cc CC CCCCccCcccccccCCC.
ccCCccCcCCCcc cc CCCCcC CccCCccccc.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-25 14:22 ID:THemSV9x
>>38
If you can't write just about anything in C in a short amount of time it's because you fail, not because of the language. Like everything else planning is what takes the greatest amount of time. Actually writting something in C takes about the same amount of time it does in Python, unless you're a slow typist.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-25 14:23 ID:9W94nIWy
>>39 Please provide proof.
Real programmers who write C with inline assembly don't care about proof of anything.
We may also need to see what is on your shopping list.
About 15 elements, why?
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-25 14:24 ID:ZfJgjgBJ
>>41 writes C code but doesn't check the return value of malloc.
Actually writting something in C takes about the same amount of time it does in Python, unless you're a slow typist. Actually writting something in C takes about the same amount of time it does in Python, unless you're a slow typist. Actually writting something in C takes about the same amount of time it does in Python, unless you're a slow typist. Actually writting something in C takes about the same amount of time it does in Python, unless you're a slow typist. Actually writting something in C takes about the same amount of time it does in Python, unless you're a slow typist.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-25 14:30 ID:9W94nIWy
>>41 Actually writting something in C takes about the same amount of time it does in Python, unless you're a slow typist.
In your dreams, kid.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-25 21:14 ID:6fTqwfy/
>>42
Until we see your chip specifications, BS is called.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-26 6:41 ID:4Kl9WM8p
>>46
Are you this stupid, or you're just pretending?
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-26 14:46 ID:qzHQiCsZ
>>4
Tracing debuggers were invented before your father was born. Today, the C programmer has more tricks up his sleeve than any Java environment can provide.
I mean, valgrind alone is fucking awesome. It's reason enough to develop all C stuff on GNU/Linux and then port to Winders when it's feature complete and right.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-26 14:51 ID:wj0xy6n0
I mean, valgrind alone is fucking awesome.
Unless, ya know, your language has a GC.
Valgrind is an awesome bandaid, but it's still a bandaid.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-26 15:15 ID:MurnZZ0J
There are no programming languages. Only fundamental charges
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-06 7:52
Task ROFL engine will offer high performance and stability in a minimum of the matrix occurs.