 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:13:54 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> On the other hand, it seems that almost every forum I visit, I end up
> rubbing somebody up the wrong way.
Welcome to the real world, Andrew. You're not going to rub everyone the
right way all the time.
> I see two possibilities:
>
> - Everybody else on the Internet is an asshole.
>
> - I'm an asshole.
There's a third possibility: Some of the people in the world (and on the
'net) are assholes, and you run into them from time to time.
Again, welcome to the real world. There are assholes out there. Best
way of dealing with them is to ignore them.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 20:28:24 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> You're not an idiot, and I never thought you were.
>
> Thank God somebody thinks so. Right now, I'm not sure *I* believe it any
> more.
Shit, man, I've never thought you were an idiot either. Just because
people disagree with you doesn't mean you're an idiot. Only an idiot
would think that! ;-)
(Note - I'm saying that HUMOROUSLY! Sit back and laugh! ;-) )
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:36:03 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> What is it about me that makes so many different people think that I'm
> just an attention-seeking fool with a loud mouth who doesn't know what
> he's talking about? Several different people, in unrelated forums, have
> all independently come to the same conclusion. There must be a reason
> for this.
Yes, some people are assholes, and groups all over the place have
different assholes.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/16/2009 12:48 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I really thought Haskell was the be-all and end-all of everything. Being
> forced to admit that it is not is really painful.
Yeah, having to go through that really sucks. But you know what? You
should really stop looking for the "be-all adn end-all" of *anything*.
You won't find it; and, if you think you have, then you're in for a big
disappointment.
> really does is reinforce your point: you must memorise what the compiler
> does and does not optimise to get good code.)
That's true of just about every other language out there, as well :)
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> On the other hand, it seems that almost every forum I visit, I end up
>> rubbing somebody up the wrong way.
>
> Welcome to the real world, Andrew. You're not going to rub everyone the
> right way all the time.
>
>> I see two possibilities:
>>
>> - Everybody else on the Internet is an asshole.
>>
>> - I'm an asshole.
>
> There's a third possibility: Some of the people in the world (and on the
> 'net) are assholes, and you run into them from time to time.
>
> Again, welcome to the real world. There are assholes out there. Best
> way of dealing with them is to ignore them.
That still doesn't explain why I'm the only one having this problem.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> Nothing is faster than C, some wise men said. ;)
>
> Assembler is.
>
Back in the days before modern processors I'd say absolutely. But
nowadays that's debatable. Due to multiple pipelines, the criticality of
cache hits and advances in compiler design, it's very difficult to beat
C with assembler.
I'd say a mix of C and inline assembly is probably your fastest
performance bet. You can leverage the optimizations the compiler will
perform, and use SIMD instructions in ways the compiler won't find.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> I raise you "Machine code" :)
More pain != faster :-P
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> That still doesn't explain why I'm the only one having this problem.
You are not the only one by far. Do you know how many times I've been
"gently corrected" just on here?
You'll see I'm wrong a lot. I draw the ire of the same people you do.
The difference is I don't dwell on it. I just go on.
OK, so that may be stupid of me, but I do listen from time to time. :)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> That's a good question, Slime. I've been wondering that myself.
I agree.
But, I find it ironic that one of his admonishments was not to derail
the thread, only to see there is a large part of this thread that has
absolutely nothing to do with the original topic. Delightfully hijacked.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Nothing is faster than C, some wise men said. ;)
>>
>> Assembler is.
>>
>
> Back in the days before modern processors I'd say absolutely. But nowadays
> that's debatable. Due to multiple pipelines, the criticality of cache hits
> and advances in compiler design, it's very difficult to beat C with
> assembler.
Well it really depends on how *difficult* it is to match or beat any
language with assembler. It's always theoretically possible, but as you say
with modern CPU and compiler design it is becoming increasingly harder.
If you really know the CPU and system architecture well I would imagine that
a skilled programmer could write a small section of assembler to run faster
than a compiler, just because humans are better at that sort of optimisation
(they can consider a lot more things intelligently that a compiler can't,
for example changing the algorithm slightly to better match the hardware).
But humans tend to be very slow at this, a compiler can perform simpler
optimisations over much larger programs far quicker.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
