HAY GUYS

Arainach · Mar 6, 2006, 08:29 PM

C and C++ are not designed to be emulated languages, which is why any "emulator" would run so poorly.

Even when programming for giant Mainframe applications that take months, programmers use high-level languages instead of assembly. Compilers do their job well and it is about infinity times easier to program in high-level as opposed to assembly.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Arainach · Mar 6, 2006, 09:37 PM

On C# - I'm no expert (I've just been learning it for a couple of weeks myself), but the entire point of C# is that it's strongly typed and prevents a lot of low-level activities that C and C++ allowed to that end. MS calls it a "security feature"; the rest of us call it "a pain in the ass".

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Arainach · Mar 6, 2006, 10:22 PM

Quote:

plus VS has the greatest API. Ever.

*Gag* What?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Arainach · Mar 7, 2006, 12:21 AM

Originally Posted by Magic

Isn't the whole point of high-level languages that you let the compiler generate all the Assembly? What's the point of using low-level code in the middle of C/C++?

By "low-level" I refer even to thing like Pointers - to even use the damned things you must compile your code with the "unsafe" option. A fundamental concept to be sure, and not all that low-level, but one that C# doesn't like.

http://www.c-sharpcorner.com/Code/20...UnsafeCode.asp

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Arainach · Mar 7, 2006, 03:06 PM

The VS IDE is.... OK. Still can't touch vim+make in my book. Or Eclipse if you truly need an honest-to-god IDE.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Arainach · Mar 9, 2006, 10:43 PM

Nowadays, when CPU time is cheap and coding time isn't, writing assembly is just plain stupid. Your code isn't portable, is more painful to debug and read, and the speed benefit is very negligible.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Arainach · Mar 21, 2006, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by PUG1911

And this is precisely why it takes 256MB of RAM and a 700+Mhz CPU to run a spreadsheet today. When spreadsheets did the same shit on a 486. The same reason why an itty-bitty VB database frontend takes 30MB of RAM to run a simple query.

First off, x86 hit your complaints on the head.

Second, who DOESN'T have 256MB of RAM and 700Mhz? I have 6 machines meeting those qualifications in my house (0 that don't), a stack of 550-700Mhz Pentium III chips sitting on my desk that I have nothing to do with, and a bag of 128MB PC100 and PC133 RAM sticks that I have nothing to do with. You can find better hardware at Goodwill.

And I guess "Third" would be stop using MS Office 2003. I've ran OpenOffice 2.0 on Pentium-75s with 128MB of RAM.

FELIPE NO

Arainach · Mar 22, 2006, 09:28 AM

The main slowdown of Java is the horrendous VMs out there today. If someone could write a good, efficient VM, it'd become the complete industry standard overnight. But that giant level of overhead is what keeps other stuff like C++ and C# going. Heck, I haven't even bothered learning Java yet. I suppose eventually I should.

How ya doing, buddy?

Arainach · Mar 23, 2006, 12:34 AM

Originally Posted by x86

OK. How many hours did it take to simply boot the application?.

About 84 seconds. Most of that due to the piece-of-crap <4200RPM HD in the box.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Arainach · Mar 23, 2006, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by x86

84 seconds just for a text editor? I don't have such a patience. Plain and simple.

MS Office XP took over 3 minutes on that box. 2003 wouldn't start for me. It was more a reflection on the system than the program. OO.org loads in under 5 seconds on my Pentium III 800Mhz/4200RPM HD laptop.

There's nowhere I can't reach.