 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> The best you can do is include a runtime self-test routine in the code
> to actively check whether compile-time endianness assumptions were right.
At which point the best approach is probably just to pack and unpack the
bits yourself. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/25/2009 7:51 AM, Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8<voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>> I've never seen TSQL, but if it's anything like SQL...
>
> How about making some googling? TSQL is SQL + some extensions.
"Doing" not "making". Please read:
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/index2.htm
starting with "A, An, The (articles)", and ending with "Zero Articles".
Make sure not to skip the middle bits, as you'll miss some important
lessons!
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
There's one thing I've always been confused about. Are all compiled
languages equal in terms of performance? I've frequently read things
like C++ being a superior performer to Java, but Java of course is a
runtime language so it's not a fair comparison.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
SharkD wrote:
> There's one thing I've always been confused about. Are all compiled
> languages equal in terms of performance?
Erm, no.
It depends how you write the program, it depends how good the compiler
is (there may even be more than one of them), it depends on what the
program is supposed to be doing in the first place, etc.
(E.g., if you're writing a program that's dominated by network latency,
it makes little difference to performance which language you use. It
might affect reliability, security or development cost, but not
performance.)
In other words, "it depends". Certainly different languages and
different language tools seem to have their strengths and weaknesses.
Actually teasing out objective "facts" about such things is less easy.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
SharkD <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 10/25/2009 7:51 AM, Warp wrote:
> > Orchid XP v8<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> I've never seen TSQL, but if it's anything like SQL...
> >
> > How about making some googling? TSQL is SQL + some extensions.
> "Doing" not "making".
You "make love", you don't "do love". ;)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
SharkD schrieb:
> There's one thing I've always been confused about. Are all compiled
> languages equal in terms of performance?
No.
However, it often depends a lot on the compiler and libraries, rather
than the language itself.
Performance may also vary with the task at hand; a language aimed at
scientific computations, for instance, may include highly optimized
libraries for matrix math, but suck at string handling.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Performance may also vary with the task at hand; a language aimed at
> scientific computations, for instance, may include highly optimized
> libraries for matrix math, but suck at string handling.
Conversely, I'm told Perl's regex handling is supposed to be quite fast...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/25/2009 1:48 PM, clipka wrote:
> However, it often depends a lot on the compiler and libraries, rather
> than the language itself.
Er, yeah! I forgot about POV's 10% performance drop as a result of
switching from the Visual Studio compiler.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 schrieb:
> clipka wrote:
>
>> Performance may also vary with the task at hand; a language aimed at
>> scientific computations, for instance, may include highly optimized
>> libraries for matrix math, but suck at string handling.
>
> Conversely, I'm told Perl's regex handling is supposed to be quite fast...
For instance, yes. And I don't expect it to have highly-optimized matrix
math libraries.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
SharkD schrieb:
> On 10/25/2009 1:48 PM, clipka wrote:
>> However, it often depends a lot on the compiler and libraries, rather
>> than the language itself.
>
> Er, yeah! I forgot about POV's 10% performance drop as a result of
> switching from the Visual Studio compiler.
A similar performance difference can be observed with POV-Ray on AMD64
Linux between binaries compiled with the Gnu and Intel compiler suites
(at least "out of the box"), with Intel in the winning seat.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
