Re: Native code FUD

faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf

main
parent
thread

Re: Native code FUD
by lypanov on Thursday 12/Aug/2004, @07:53

umm i very much doubt this...

c is here to stay. but c++ i doubt.
dynamic optimisation is not possible
without a jitting mechanism and a
language that doesn't overspecify.
good jit compiler do inlines of
the methods based on execution
profiling. the best c++ compiler
can only guess. and slowly at
that. sure with profile feedback
it can do much better. but still
nowhere near perfect.

also its because of the
overspecification of interfaces
in c++ that we don't see automatic
removal of virtual keywords based
on profiling / path analysis

same goes for the need to
explicitly use zone allocators
rather than have the runtime
figure it out at er.. yeah
runtime :)

Alex

Related Links

·   Articles on Community and Events
·   Also by lypanov
·   Contact author

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )

Re: Native code FUD
by Richard Dale on Thursday 12/Aug/2004, @17:06

"c is here to stay. but c++ i doubt.
dynamic optimisation is not possible
without a jitting mechanism and a
language that doesn't overspecify.
good jit compiler do inlines of
the methods based on execution
profiling. the best c++ compiler
can only guess. and slowly at
that. sure with profile feedback
it can do much better. but still
nowhere near perfect."

I think you've lost the plot here. Which is most important - a gui framework based on a more expressive dynamic language such as ruby, or a statically compiled language which is a bit faster at runtime because of jit compilation? And should a toolkit be written in the same language that end users will program it in?

Which gui toolkits are so awesome that they just need a bit of jit'ing to make them perfect? MFC, Swing, WinForms, Delphi, Taligent, WxWidgets, GTK+, GTK#. To me they're all just a bunch of dogs compared with Cocoa or Qt/KDE.

C# is a complex systems programming language (as a systems programmer I find it fun), but it is most certainly not a RAD language that everyday programmers will feel comfortable with. Ruby doesn't have jit'ing, but does anyone care, it's just much easier to get stuff done with ruby (or python) than C# or java or C++. Why can't we talk about the programming language usability vs. efficiency tradeoff? The Qt toolkit will never be as popular as it should be while it is C++ specific - a jit'ed C# version wouldn't solve that problem at all.

[ Reply To This | View ]

The Fine Print: The previous comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )


		"If you have an itch not being scratched, you can scratch it, or pay someone to scratch it for you." -- Eric Laffoon
KDE®, "K Desktop Environment", "KDE Dot News", "got the dot?" and the KDE Logo® are trademarks or registered trademarks of KDE e.V. in the European Union, the United States and other countries. All other trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster. The rest: Copyright © 2000-2008 KDE e.V. for The KDE Project. For further information or comments on this site, please contact the Webmaster.