"Google has released a research paper that suggests C++ is the best-performing programming language in the market. The internet giant implemented a compact algorithm in four languages - C++, Java, Scala and its own programming language Go - and then benchmarked results to find 'factors of difference'."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2011-01-28
acobar,
"Well, I will repeat to you what I do to everyone I met and that would ask my advise (not your case) on programming: first look for a good, tested, implementation. Many people try to code fragments that are already optimized for ages. They don't look at Donald Knuth's ACP, fftw, lapack, atlas and many other well-thought code before they start and, as such, write subpar code."
I actually don't encourage people to optimize things at such small levels or in assembly. I'm just disturbed that so many people are under the false impression that their compilers are so difficult to beat.
"You get a pretty decent optimized code:"
Yes, I am aware that we can coerce the compiler to generate better instructions by rewriting the C code.
(Although it still isn't as good for the other reasons already discussed).
It concerns me that GCC converts our C code to assembly so literally instead of generating more optimal paths.
Should we really encourage devs to adjust thier programming style to compensate for GCC optimizer deficiency?
Does this mean that C devs will have to understand CPU internals in order to have GCC produce optimal code?
I really don't think we should be making excuses for GCC here. There is nothing unreasonable about expecting the original code to be optimized by the compiler.
Edit: By the way I am guilty of rewriting C code at the micro level in order to help GCC optimizer along. But we shouldn't have to do this in the first place.
Edited 2011-06-11 10:08 UTC
Member since:2005-11-15
Perhaps, I should have said it on a more direct style: I do not encourage people to write optimized code, I tell them to look for good algorithms and rather to good libraries whenever they are available.
To me, actually, all this talk about the better language to code in is a bit misleading, we should clearly concentrate on algorithms. We don't know on what we will be coding 20 years from now be we know that good algorithms will probably survive, like they did on past.
Sincerely, for most of the applications it does not matter a dime if you spend 1 millisecond or 1 microsecond doing something, and there are a factor of 1000 involved. And for the ones that matter, there are a chance that it is already well known and that a wise compromise was devised.
I see people everyday praising languages that make them write less code, or type less, or write more comfortable (understandable) code, or in the ones they like the syntax more. And all those arguments are sensible.
I, particularly, like languages that have all tools I feel I may need, like GUI generators, automation by scripts, code templates (not necessarily like on C++), profilers (for the very rare occasions where they are needed), many of modern OO concepts and, of course, that may be linked against good, well known tested libraries.
To be even more direct: people should learn more before code, unlike what we so repeatedly see. This would save time on rewrites and latter tunes.
Edited 2011-06-11 11:38 UTC
Member since:2010-03-30
Member since:2010-03-08
I'd argue that the C/C++ developer shouldn't have to do black magic in order to optimize its code either.
Alfman's use of for loops is perfectly normal, easy to understand, and you'll find it in every book on C. One shouldn't have to sacrifice code clarity like you did in order to get better performance, especially on such trivial code.
Member since:2005-11-15
Sorry, but I fail to find where the code I showed is "less understandable". It is actually a very well known technique, i.e., reduce the number of unneeded comparisons.
Anyway, it was used only to point out one of the many gross assumptions people do about code efficiency, compiler optimizations and related stuff. We clearly should teach more about algorithms than about languages like we do today.
Member since:2005-09-08
If you are not a wizard you should not be programming C/C++. There are other languages that are much better suited for high-level programming. C/C++ are only superior languages in enabling more power to a powerful wizard, in unskilled hands they are at best teaching/testing tools.
Member since:2006-07-25
Member since:2011-04-11
i--;
a[i] += b[i];
}
I'm pretty sure this is a terrible idea because it will mess up all the cache lines and pre-fetching if you walk through memory backwards. "
No. Prefetchers (in every processor I've touched) support negative strides and working backwards have no performance problems.
Why does Google get so much credit in the technology industry? Why, despite the company's many obvious failings, do many geeks and enthusiasts still hold a somewhat positive view on the all-knowing technology giant? A specific talk at Google I/O this week provides the answer.
OSNews is a sponsor of this year's O'Reilly OSCON in Portland, Oregon, USA. A lucky OSNews reader will win a free three-day pass, including two tutorials days. To win the pass, post a comment on this story saying something about Open Source Software or OSCON. We'll pick a winner at random next week. If you don't have an OSNews account, you may email us your entry. Part of the conference is the 9th annual Open Source Awards, and today the 16th is the deadline for nominations. If you'd like to nominate an outstanding open source contributor, do it here. Read on for more information about OSCON. Update: The 20% discount code for OSNews readers is "OSN."
"Windows is indeed slower than other operating systems in many scenarios, and the gap is worsening." That's one way to start an insider explanation of why Windows' performance isn't up to snuff. Written by someone who actually contributes code to the Windows NT kernel, the comment on Hacker News, later deleted but reposted with permission on Marc Bevand's blog, paints a very dreary picture of the state of Windows development. The root issue? Think of how Linux is developed, and you'll know the answer.
This is one of those news items that's fun to write, fun to read, fun to comment on, and where no one will be able to say anything unkind. It's all just one big ball of awesome fluffiness. TuneTracker, the BeOS radio automation software, has just released something very special: TuneTracker System 5, the first version designed entirely and specifically for Haiku. In fact, it actually includes Haiku in the software package. Better yet, TuneTracker also unveiled several system-in-a-box products - which have Haiku and TuneTracker pre-installed.
Exactly twenty years ago, a document was published that played a huge role in establishing the web as we know it today. Twenty years later, and this simple and straightforward document is proof of an irrefutable fact: while closed technologies can change markets, open technologies can change the world.
Oh multitasking. That staple of computing that got thrown out the window with many modern smartphones. We got some rudimentary thing in its place - but even as multitasking on phone and tablets improves, its user-visible side remains cumbersome. Windows 8 has a neat implementation, and now it's time Android follows in it footsteps.They're here! Whether that excites you or not remains to be seen, but the Galaxy S4, which will most likely become the best selling Android smartphone of the year by a huge margin, has been reviewed by all the major sites, and there's lots of interesting conclusions in there - although I think most of you will get the gist.Nokia has posted its quarterly results for the first quarter of 2013, and just like the quarters that came before, there's not a whole lot of good news in there. The rise in Lumia sales still can't even dream of making up for the sales drop in Symbian phones, and when broken down in versions, the sales figures for Windows Phone 8 Lumias in particular are very disappointing. In North America, Nokia is getting slaughtered.The day has finally come: Google has started shipping Google Glass to the lucky few early adopters. Now that it's shipping, Google has also unveiled a lot more about the API and the specifications of the device itself. While the company had already given out substantial details at earlier occasions, there are still a few surprises here.
Almost exactly three years ago, I wrote about why OSNews was no longer OSNews: the alternative operating system scene had died, and OSNews, too, had to go with the times and move towards reporting on a new wave of operating systems - mobile, and all the repercussions that the explosion of smartphones and tablets have caused. Still, I was wondering something today: why aren't we seeing alternative operating systems on mobile?
Member since:
2005-11-15
Well, I will repeat to you what I do to everyone I met and that would ask my advise (not your case) on programming: first look for a good, tested, implementation. Many people try to code fragments that are already optimized for ages. They don't look at Donald Knuth's ACP, fftw, lapack, atlas and many other well-thought code before they start and, as such, write subpar code.
For example, if you change your code to:
void vector_add(unsigned int*a, unsigned int a_len, unsigned int*b, unsigned int b_len)
{
unsigned int i;
for (i = a_len < b_len ? a_len : b_len ; i > 0 ; ) {
i--;
a[i] += b[i];
}
}
You get a pretty decent optimized code:
vector_add:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
cmpl %esi, %ecx
cmovbe %ecx, %esi
testl %esi, %esi
je .L1
.p2align 4,,10
.p2align 3
.L4:
decl %esi
mov %esi, %eax
movl (%rdx,%rax,4), %ecx
addl %ecx, (%rdi,%rax,4)
testl %esi, %esi
jne .L4
.L1:
rep
ret
.cfi_endproc
As can be clearly seen, compilers are not black-magic wizards and, regretfully, depend on the code quality we give to them, and we should never forget that.