On 14-Jul-08 1:14, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>>   Is there *any* programming language designed after the early 80's which
>>> actually cares about memory usage?
> 
>> POV-Ray?
> 
>   Except that POV-Ray isn't a programming language but a renderer.
> 
it is both.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

>>> FORTH?
>>   1970's.
> 
> Oh. Yeah, OK, it was around a lot longer than I knew. Standardized a lot 
> later, tho.  Thanks. :-)

I can't believe a computer expert wouldn't know that. I mean, FORTH is 
only, like, the most important programming language *ever*! Next you'll 
be telling me you don't know who Babbage is...







[I'm only kidding of couse...]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> 
>>>> FORTH?
>>>   1970's.
>>
>> Oh. Yeah, OK, it was around a lot longer than I knew. Standardized a 
>> lot later, tho.  Thanks. :-)
> 
> I can't believe a computer expert wouldn't know that. I mean, FORTH is 
> only, like, the most important programming language *ever*! Next you'll 
> be telling me you don't know who Babbage is...

Didn't he write programs with the alphabet soup his wife Ada made for him?

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> On 14-Jul-08 1:14, Warp wrote:
> > andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> >>>   Is there *any* programming language designed after the early 80's which
> >>> actually cares about memory usage?
> > 
> >> POV-Ray?
> > 
> >   Except that POV-Ray isn't a programming language but a renderer.
> > 
> it is both.

  If you are referring to the SDL as a "programming language", that is
a real memory hog.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   Is there *any* programming language designed after the early 80's which
> > actually cares about memory usage?

> HTML

> (Dodges tomatos!)

  Even if it was a "programming language", HTML is probably one of the
*least* memory-efficient languages ever.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 14-Jul-08 16:35, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> On 14-Jul-08 1:14, Warp wrote:
>>> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>>>>   Is there *any* programming language designed after the early 80's which
>>>>> actually cares about memory usage?
>>>> POV-Ray?
>>>   Except that POV-Ray isn't a programming language but a renderer.
>>>
>> it is both.
> 
>   If you are referring to the SDL as a "programming language", that is
> a real memory hog.
> 
No I am referring to the way SDL handles datastructures. I assume that 
they are designed to let the scene use as little memory as possible. I 
could be wrong, but I shouldn't. ;)

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> No I am referring to the way SDL handles datastructures.

  If you make, for example, an array of objects with the SDL, it is
a memory hog.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I can't believe a computer expert wouldn't know that. I mean, FORTH is 
> only, like, the most important programming language *ever*!

Heh. To be fair, I've written at least two complete FORTH interpreters. 
:-) Still, it wasn't actually popular until the 80's.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

On 14-Jul-08 20:30, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> No I am referring to the way SDL handles datastructures.
> 
>   If you make, for example, an array of objects with the SDL, it is
> a memory hog.
> 
Well, lets change that in POV4.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> On 14-Jul-08 20:30, Warp wrote:
> > andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> >> No I am referring to the way SDL handles datastructures.
> > 
> >   If you make, for example, an array of objects with the SDL, it is
> > a memory hog.
> > 
> Well, lets change that in POV4.

  I bet it won't be too different in that regard.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message