 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> On 14-Jul-08 1:14, Warp wrote:
> > andrel <a_l### [at] hotmail com> 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] ieee org> 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] hotmail com> wrote:
>> On 14-Jul-08 1:14, Warp wrote:
>>> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmail com> 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] hotmail com> 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] hotmail com> 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] hotmail com> wrote:
> On 14-Jul-08 20:30, Warp wrote:
> > andrel <a_l### [at] hotmail com> 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
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
>> 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.
...it was actually popular? :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
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.
>
> ....it was actually popular? :-P
Actually, yeah. For example, every Sun Sparcstation had FORTH in ROM,
and a number of other embedded systems used it (like printer drivers and
such).
But it was never popular like C is, no. Certainly more popular in the
80's (after a standard came out for it) than in the 70'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
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> You remember the days when programmers struggled to fit as much program
> as possible into 64 KB of RAM?
I still do ...
-- Chris
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |