Female Programmers Unite!

On behalf of my good friend Kendall, here is her compiler/interpreter tutorial just uploaded hours ago:

http://www.youtube.com/v/1XZoKXJpbVg&hl=en_US&fs=1&;

Enjoy!

>>1
Compulsive semicolon much?

Female Programmers
No such thing exists.

>>1
Look at that revealing dress. What a filthy whore.

>>3
Wow, you take denial to a whole new level.

>>4
Look at those eyebrows. It's a man.

>>3
Here's a fun fact: At my university, 85% of computer science freshmen are male. 43% of computer science seniors are female. In other words, men drop/fail/switch majors away from CS WAY more frequently.

Whats even better is the average GPA of male senior CS students is 3.06 and female senior students is a staggering 3.45

>>6
I'm a chick and I have thicker eyebrows than that...

>>7
anyone who's any good at programming stays far away from CS.

>>8
prove it.

>>9
Thats crazy talk.

>>5
no

>>8
no

>>10
which part?

>>11
i loled

>>12
anyone who's any good at programming stays far away from CS.

>>14
it's true. all the good programmers choose real majors, like mathematics or physics.

>>1
Wtf. I started watching this because she's hot and I'm drunk. Go to 4:05. Check out the examples of optimization she gives:

- A preprocessor define being inlined
- Declaration of loop variables moved outside the loop

Wtf? These are not optimization at all! The preprocessor constant should be substituted BEFORE lexical analysis (according to the standard, though some compilers combine it with lexical analysis) which is long before optimization, and the declaration of loop variables makes no difference at all; they are just references to stack space which are the same whether they are in the loop or outside the loop.

In all honesty though it's really great to see an intelligent female programmer. As a career programmer, the Steve rule is incredibly depressing to me.

she's hot and I'm drunk.
Moar liek "he's hot because I'm drunk." amirite?

>>16
Just do add on to this:

She says intepreted languages skip the optimization step (at least at compile time). This is wrong. Interpreted languages do optimize the code quite a lot at compile time (especially for embedded VMs). For example, with J2ME and Android, the compiler will do a lot of static analysis (called the pre-verification step) to remove stuff like bounds checks where it's unnecessary from the compiled bytecode. Compilation for BlackBerry in particular can actually be quite slow for these reasons.

There is this recurring assumption that interpreters run slower just because they have to do more runtime work. This is not necessarily true. Some JIT VMs can actually end up with faster code in a lot of scenarios because they can exhibit much better cache locality. They profile the code to figure out what functions are hotspots, compile them, then mash them together into one cache line so the thing runs super fast. Most compilers are extremely dumb in this respect; profile-guided optimization isn't that good, and some compiled languages bloat the outputted code heavily having devastating effects on cache performance (I'm looking at you, C++). Compiled languages can't re-organize the machine code at runtime.

Also, the platform independence of interpreted languages is kind of a joke at this point. Java VMs are starting to get their own bytecode formats for crying out loud, so J2SE != MIDP != BlackBerry != Android. Even for the desktop stuff, the rule is now write once, test everywhere.

>>1

Yay, middle school level programming!

just to give you bitches a hand, if you want to contact someone who is female and really makes C/C++ compilers for a living, I recommend you contact Julienne Walker, here is her website which has a lot of good articles: http://www.eternallyconfuzzled.com/jsw_home.aspx
she is also a forum moderator at cprogramming.com and daniweb.com

>>18
How the heck do JIT vms figure in a discussion on interpreters? Are we conflating bytecode interpreters and regular ones because, fuck, I don't know?

>>19
Middle school? Yeah right. 3503 System Software. Thats upper division undergraduate level.

Thats upper division undergraduate level.
maybe in some shitty third-world country.

>>20
is she hot?

>>24
yes she is, blond, looks like someone who would work in a bank or something

>>25
pics please

>>26
she took it off her website and I cant find it on web search

>>27
google cache?

>>28
all I know about her is:
shes 31 has a kid, not married, lives in Atlanta, likes rock climbing and goes to a rock climbing place called "Atlanta Rocks" and she posts under the name "Prelude" at cprogramming.com

bitches and hoes

makes C/C++ compilers for a living
jsw_home.aspx
Nice try.

>>28
http://web.archive.org/web/20060207060354/www.eternallyconfuzzled.com/about.html

yes she is, blond, looks like someone who would work in a bank or something
No. She is uglier than a red headed anus.

>>32
You are wrong, she is definitely more attractive than Patrick Collision.

>>29
Apparently she left when she couldn't change her avatar.^[1]

1: http://cboard.cprogramming.com/brief-history-cprogramming-com/56162-so-what-ever-really-happened-prelude.html

[code]Dislikes: humidity, speeding tickets, the emo look, C Shell[\code]

Oh god.

Sorry for my BBCode failure.

Dislikes: humidity, speeding tickets, the emo look, C Shell

>>16
References to stack space
...Which are then destroyed when they go out of scope at the end of a loop execution and then recreated when the loop begins again. For every iteration. IHBT

>>37
Loop variables are kept because the compiler knows it's a loop and it knows exactly what you described would happen if they weren't.

>>38
in loop:
unsigned long long:    Took 239016ms to do 46116860184 loops.
unsigned int:        Took 205063ms to do 46116860184 loops.
unsigned short:        Took 222547ms to do 46116860184 loops.
unsigned char:        Took 206047ms to do 46116860184 loops.
signed long long:    Took 238610ms to do 46116860184 loops.
signed int:        Took 205485ms to do 46116860184 loops.
signed short:        Took 221063ms to do 46116860184 loops.
signed char:        Took 205891ms to do 46116860184 loops.

out of loop:
unsigned long long:    Took 239094ms to do 46116860184 loops.
unsigned int:        Took 171109ms to do 46116860184 loops.
unsigned short:        Took 223219ms to do 46116860184 loops.
unsigned char:        Took 171547ms to do 46116860184 loops.
signed long long:    Took 238985ms to do 46116860184 loops.
signed int:        Took 171406ms to do 46116860184 loops.
signed short:        Took 222610ms to do 46116860184 loops.
signed char:        Took 171406ms to do 46116860184 loops.

/*
    const unsigned long long loopiters = 46116860184;
    clock_t b = clock();
    signed char blah2;
    for (unsigned long long c = 0; c <= loopiters; c++) {
        blah2 = 0;
    }
    cout << "Took " << clock() - b << "ms to do " << loopiters << " loops." << endl;
*/

And that's with primitives, chum.

>>32
I love to play video games, watch anime

I'M IN LOVE