Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 4th Aug 2012 04:17 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems "Quick - name the most important personal computer of the late 1970s and early 1980s. Those of you who mentioned the legendary Apple II - that's fine. I respect your decision. Forced to think objectively in 2012, I may even agree. But if you just named Radio Shack's TRS-80, you made me smile. Your choice is entirely defensible. And back in the TRS-80's heyday, I not only would have agreed with it but would have vehemently opposed any other candidate."
Thread beginning with comment 529761
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Nothing special
by moondevil on Sun 5th Aug 2012 16:30 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Nothing special"
Member since:

How much faster does C++ perform vs .NET you reckon?

It depends on your use case, but there is nothing like native code if you want to squeeze the performance out of the machine.

With C++ you have more control over the data structure layouts to optimize the caches usage.

Shorter startup times and easy distribution of binaries.

Plus thanks to intrinsics it is easy to exploit SIMD and GPGPU capabilities.

Now, it is possible to compile .NET applications directly to native code by making use of NGEN, but even with .NET 4.0 there are some limitations on NGEN code quality vs JIT.

Microsoft actually acknowledges this in two ways:

- NGEN is being improved in .NET 4.5;

- A few months ago they had listed on their careers web site, open positions for C# native code compilers engineers

This second point is actually what I would like to have. A C# compiler that targets native code directly for distribution, while using the CLR during development.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Nothing special
by MOS6510 on Sun 5th Aug 2012 18:43 in reply to "RE[6]: Nothing special"
MOS6510 Member since:

I stopped coding in the BASIC/Assembler period. BASIC was slow, Assembler was fast. So each time anything but Assembler is used I get the feeling things aren't as effective/fast as they could be.

But I promisse I will start learning a (modern) language.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Nothing special
by rdean400 on Sun 5th Aug 2012 19:30 in reply to "RE[7]: Nothing special"
rdean400 Member since:

Assembler can be optimized better than most HLL's, but it should also be said that modern optimizing compilers produce better machine code than all but the most elite of programmers could, with a fraction of the effort. At some point, you have to determine how much it will cost to achieve perfect optimization.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Nothing special
by zima on Sat 11th Aug 2012 23:54 in reply to "RE[7]: Nothing special"
zima Member since:

Assembler was fast. So each time anything but Assembler is used I get the feeling things aren't as effective/fast as they could be.

Looking at what programmers are mostly out there, who we can afford, how much we are willing to pay them, asm is infeasible. Usually, better for the code to be high level (that's also the case with C++ vs .NET)

Remember, 80+% of drivers think they are above average, and 95% of programmers think they are in the top 5%.

Reply Parent Score: 2