Developer time is the most valuable resource. Writing in Python may cause slower code, but it is in reality much more efficient because you will get an exponential amount of more work done!
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-29 0:21
In c, suppose:
foo = false;
Should I write:
foo = bar;
Or:
if (bar) foo = true;
Will the first statement always execute faster, or does it depend on whether bar is true or false?
>>31
Intel made processors that melted people's balls and backed off from those blistering (HEH) speeds. Computers are no longer commodity devices if they're hotter than the sun and require heavy equipment to cool.
Since you brought it up: The effective processing speed did not hit a wall. Intel's >3GHz offerings from around 2004 used a lot of stupid tricks to make it seem like they were faster than they actually were, because as long as they could get away with a higher MHz label, they could sell newer processors. The per-instruction latency in the PIV and friends was actually harmful to overall performance compared to, say, a PIII-based design with the same clock speed.
If they'd done it "the right way" the whole time (ie. relying only on smaller processes for faster speeds instead of doing parlor tricks with the instruction pipeline) you'd see a much gentler slowdown over time.
Name:
Anonymous2012-12-01 15:05
>>4
It does, but it's a library feature (include stdbool.h), not a language feature like it is in C++ and other languages.
Name:
Anonymous2012-12-01 15:15
>>32
If they'd done it the right way the whole time they'd develop SPARC or Setun derivative.
Name:
Anonymous2012-12-01 16:41
>LE LELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
>LE MEME FACE WHEN
>LE MEME FACE WHEN
>LEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
>EGIN!
>EGINGIN!!!!
>EGINGINGWIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>MY LEL FACE WHEN LE /G/RO IS FUQIN EGIN
>>34
Hence the "scare" "quotes." Doing it that way was not actually very damaging in the short term, and even though they "wasted" a lot of money and engineering talent on making their CPUs look faster, they gobbled up a lot of market share in the process. It was the right move for Intel in terms of corporate self-interest.
Name:
Anonymous2012-12-01 19:48
>>31,32
Intel jumped onto the RISC bandwagon and became obsessed with pushing their CPUs as fast as they could, even if it meant using such a deep pipeline that anything but pure sequential code got hit with a huge latency penalty.
Name:
Anonymous2012-12-02 0:46
So basically a market full of retards made pony trick profitable which is why we had P4.
>>32
Fun facts: P4 processors did not have a barrel shifter so their shifts and rotates were slow, and even the ALU was pipelined so that operations <= 16 bits of data were around twice as fast as those needing 32 bits. The ALU ran at double the clock of the rest of the logic, and could beat Core/Core2 in straight-line execution in very very specific pieces of code(basically integer adds only). Very sensitive to instruction and data alignment, not unlike most RISCs.
Name:
Anonymous2012-12-02 6:40
>>39
Remember when you ran away and I got on my knees and begged you not to go because I'd go berserk?
Well, You left me anyhow and then the days got worse and worse and now you see I've gone completely OUT OF MY MIND!