 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> SharkD <mik### [at] gmail com> 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". ;)
But if you make love to google, you're probably doing it wrong.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
SharkD wrote:
> like C++ being a superior performer to Java, but Java of course is a
> runtime language so it's not a fair comparison.
Plus, Java is compiled, and indeed, some JVMs will recompile the code
multiple times during its execution to get it to go faster. Some non-VM
languages also let you feed in profile information to the compiler to get it
to recompile better. Some hardware has instructions specifically to support
some languages. Pretty much everyone has floating point hardware these days,
but it used to be quite common to have support for printing, formatting
numbers, moving blocks of variables, and the other sorts of stuff the COBOL
did a lot of that wasn't fast enough in the old hardware.
So, no. They're not all the same in performance, and they aren't even all
the same in terms of capabilities.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Conversely, I'm told Perl's regex handling is supposed to be quite fast...
I'd guess .NET is faster, if only because it compiles the regex into machine
code, rather than interpret it.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> How about making some googling?
>>
>>> "Doing" not "making".
>>
>> You "make love", you don't "do love". ;)
>
> But if you make love to google, you're probably doing it wrong.
*facepalm*
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > 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". ;)
> But if you make love to google, you're probably doing it wrong.
You don't make love to google. You make some googling.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> > Conversely, I'm told Perl's regex handling is supposed to be quite fast...
> I'd guess .NET is faster, if only because it compiles the regex into machine
> code, rather than interpret it.
I think that the concept of "interpreting" might be a bit blurred here.
I assume that perl constructs a state machine from the regexp and then does
the matching against it. How much that is "interpreting"... Hard to say.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> 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". ;)
>
>> But if you make love to google, you're probably doing it wrong.
>
> You don't make love to google. You make some googling.
I think "googly eyes" is the term you're looking for.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Conversely, I'm told Perl's regex handling is supposed to be quite fast...
>
>> I'd guess .NET is faster, if only because it compiles the regex into machine
>> code, rather than interpret it.
>
> I think that the concept of "interpreting" might be a bit blurred here.
> I assume that perl constructs a state machine from the regexp and then does
> the matching against it. How much that is "interpreting"... Hard to say.
Yeah. .NET does the same thing, then actually generates custom machine code
to run through the state machine. As in, if you compile enough different
regular expressions, you'll eventually run out of code space, because the
compiler can't GC machine code you've generated.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4ae475ef$1@news.povray.org...
> 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. :-)
>
I remember having written a game on a portable Unix machine (with a Motorala
68010 processor) and being amazed at what happened with my save files when I
moved to my first DOS machine (with an 80386 processor); I hadn't ever had
to deal with byte order before that. In that case, the save data was
relatively small, so I re-wrote it to save in ASCII printable characters,
which solved that problem. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Captain Jack wrote:
> I remember having written a game on a portable Unix machine (with a Motorala
> 68010 processor) and being amazed at what happened with my save files when I
> moved to my first DOS machine (with an 80386 processor); I hadn't ever had
> to deal with byte order before that. In that case, the save data was
> relatively small, so I re-wrote it to save in ASCII printable characters,
> which solved that problem. :)
It still makes me sad that Intel chose to store bytes in the wrong order
all those years ago...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
