 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> It's like saying that Python is 1000 times faster than C by running the
> C program in a computer made in 1980 and the Python program in a computer
> made in 2009.
The link in the first sentence takes you to where he explains what he's
talking about in the follow-up.
"""
Life is good if you have applications or tools or games that you want to
write. Even a language like Ruby, which tends to hang near the bottom of any
performance-oriented benchmark, is thousands of times faster than BASICs
that people were learning to program 8-bit home computers with in the 1980s.
"""
It's not a language shoot-out. It's saying "this is what 30 years of
progress brings, when a "slow" language is 100,000 times as fast as a "slow"
language from 1980."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/14/2009 6:21 PM, andrel wrote:
> He was specifically comparing it with his (ours I am afraid) experience
> with 8 bit hardware at *that* time. So you can not take points away for
> that.
Yes you can.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
TC wrote:
> The basic code on a 1 MHz PC in 1984 (very optimitic - probably the Atari
> CPU was slower) ran 100x slower than python on a 2400 MHz single core (he
> mentions old harware).
Um, first, no. You didn't even read down to the end of the article, where he
explains it's 108,000 times as fast.
> - computers got faster since 1984 (surprise)
He wasn't being surprising. Look at the link at the top.
> - Python is being interpreted 24x slower than ancient BASIC (at least per
> MHz)
That isn't the point of the article. Indeed, the entire article is a follow
up to an article that says "Would you kindly STFU about which language is
faster, when they're all 100,000 times as fast as what you used at the start
of your career?"
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/14/2009 3:17 PM, TC wrote:
> The basic code on a 1 MHz PC in 1984 (very optimitic - probably the Atari
> CPU was slower) ran 100x slower than python on a 2400 MHz single core (he
> mentions old harware).
He says ~100000x not 100x. On the Python machine he's executing the
script 1000x times instead of 1x on the Basic machine.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
SharkD wrote:
> On 11/14/2009 6:21 PM, andrel wrote:
>> He was specifically comparing it with his (ours I am afraid) experience
>> with 8 bit hardware at *that* time. So you can not take points away for
>> that.
>
> Yes you can.
Only if you want to miss the entire f'ing point of the article.
"I hate Batman's costume. It's so scary!"
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, I did not realize the code ran 1000 times. Must have skipped this when
reading the article). My mistake, sorry.
So: ashes on my head, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa ;-)
Besides, I am a veteran from those days, too. Drawing my first sine-curve on
a CRT took a really long time, 10 minutes or so.
(No, not the math did take much time: you had to fill the screen with
characters from 0-255, remap the dot-matrices of the characters into RAM,
then calculate individual points position and set the appropriate bits in
the character's 16 bytes dot-matrix. Actually the 3.5kB RAM did not suffice
to hold all characters and the BASIC program, so the lower right part of the
screen was always blank.)
Things did speed up a bit since those days. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> SharkD wrote:
> > On 11/14/2009 6:21 PM, andrel wrote:
> >> He was specifically comparing it with his (ours I am afraid) experience
> >> with 8 bit hardware at *that* time. So you can not take points away for
> >> that.
> >
> > Yes you can.
>
> Only if you want to miss the entire f'ing point of the article.
I'd say the article is badly written. I'm not supposed to know whatever
previous article says in order to understand the current one. This one simply
compares an old slow language in old hardware against new slow language in
modern hardware and comes up with a silly conclusion:
"If the Atari BASIC program ran a thousand times, it would finish after 324,000
seconds or 5400 minutes or almost four days. That means the Python version
is--get ready for this--108,000 times faster than the Atari BASIC code.
That's progress."
without acknowledging hardware differences... like implying Python is, what,
120000x faster than Basic...
In order to know that the point of the article is not that one gotta read the
previous one. As it is, without context, it FAILS.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
TC <do-not-reply@i-do get-enough-spam-already-2498.com> wrote:
> Besides, I am a veteran from those days, too. Drawing my first sine-curve on
> a CRT took a really long time, 10 minutes or so.
> (No, not the math did take much time: you had to fill the screen with
> characters from 0-255, remap the dot-matrices of the characters into RAM,
> then calculate individual points position and set the appropriate bits in
> the character's 16 bytes dot-matrix. Actually the 3.5kB RAM did not suffice
> to hold all characters and the BASIC program, so the lower right part of the
> screen was always blank.)
That still doesn't explain the 10 minutes. Might explain 10 seconds, if
even that much.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, I do not know how old you are, but everything was SLOW back then. Even
accessing memory locations using peek and poke did take some time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_VIC-20
Now, all this is almost 30 years past. Maybe I misremember the time it took,
but I doubt it.
Back then you tried everything to increase speed. Instead of dividing by pi
you manually computed 1/pi and used this as a factor (muliplication was way
faster than division), instead of using x^2 you used x*x (faster ;-), I
think you get the picture. But if you did not experience this first hand,
you will not believe it.
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:4aff4e5b@news.povray.org...
> TC <do-not-reply@i-do get-enough-spam-already-2498.com> wrote:
>> Besides, I am a veteran from those days, too. Drawing my first sine-curve
>> on
>> a CRT took a really long time, 10 minutes or so.
>
>> (No, not the math did take much time: you had to fill the screen with
>> characters from 0-255, remap the dot-matrices of the characters into RAM,
>> then calculate individual points position and set the appropriate bits in
>> the character's 16 bytes dot-matrix. Actually the 3.5kB RAM did not
>> suffice
>> to hold all characters and the BASIC program, so the lower right part of
>> the
>> screen was always blank.)
>
> That still doesn't explain the 10 minutes. Might explain 10 seconds, if
> even that much.
>
> --
> - Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> I'd say the article is badly written. I'm not supposed to know whatever
> previous article says in order to understand the current one.
1) It's a blog.
2) The first paragraph tells you what he's comparing.
> That's progress."
>
> without acknowledging hardware differences...
No. He's talking specifically about the hardware, as he says in the first
paragraph.
> In order to know that the point of the article is not that one gotta read the
> previous one.
That's why he quotes the previous one in the first paragraph, provides a
link, and says "here's more specific details of what I'm talking about.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
