 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> substituting the irrelevant term "bytecode" for "managed code":
Bytecode comes from Smalltalk, where each opcode was a byte. "Managed
code" means your resources are managed by the VM. So they really do mean
different orthogonal things.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> The sad thing is that the places where performance shouldn't really matter is
> the place where C/C++/Java/C# are firmly entrenched: running custom apps in TI
> sections of non-software developer firms.
I think that one reason for that is the vast amount of libraries available
for those languages, as well as the amount of programmers with experience.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I think that one reason for that is the vast amount of libraries available
> for those languages, as well as the amount of programmers with experience.
I think Haskell won't start really winning big-time until it has at
least one or other of those things.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> C++ is C postincremented by 1 in C syntax.
Strictly, shouldn't it be ++C? I mean, "C++" would have the same value
as "C" (yet incrimenting C afterwards).
> C# is C incremented by one semitone in musical syntax.
That's a noteworthy fact.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > substituting the irrelevant term "bytecode" for "managed code":
>
> Bytecode comes from Smalltalk, where each opcode was a byte. "Managed
> code" means your resources are managed by the VM. So they really do mean
> different orthogonal things.
But that's not the point. The point is that "bytecode" running in a "VM" were
suplanted by "managed code" because that sounds better to manager ears: if
it's managed, then it's code that know its place and works in schedule. ;)
Microsoft are marketing geniuses.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Microsoft are marketing geniuses.
Finally, a comment I won't disagree with...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Microsoft are marketing geniuses.
I think that goes without saying. (Yes, I understood what you were
saying. I was just clarifying where the terms came from, in general,
showing off my big brain. ;-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:13:17 -0400, nemesis wrote:
> Microsoft are marketing geniuses.
Actually, they're not - their marketing is outsourced. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Strictly, shouldn't it be ++C? I mean, "C++" would have the same value
> as "C" (yet incrimenting C afterwards).
You're not the first pedant to mention that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Strictly, shouldn't it be ++C? I mean, "C++" would have the same value
>> as "C" (yet incrimenting C afterwards).
>
> You're not the first pedant to mention that.
Yay, me!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
