Re: C++ sucks for games

From: Raghar (notfor_at_mail.com)
Date: 11/23/04


Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:29:20 +0000 (UTC)

Sashank Varma <none@vanderbilt.edu> wrote in
news:none-B61743.09493911112004@news.vanderbilt.edu:

> In article <MPG.1bfd5f21cd6f4415989ad7@news.indigo.ie>,
> Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
>
>> But this is the thing - you go on about how Lisp is "so much
>> more productive" but there's no evidence of it!
>
> There is this website called Google where you can go
> and type things like "lisp comparison C++" and it
<snip>
> a few and found some interesting, honest evaluations.
>
> http://userpages.umbc.edu/~bcorfm1/C++-vs-Lisp.html
> http://www.lisp.org/table/compare.htm
> http://www.python.org/doc/essays/comparisons.html
> http://www.flownet.com/gat/papers/lisp-java.pdf
> http://www.norvig.com/java-lisp.html
> http://www.memorymanagement.org/articles/lang.html
> http://http.cs.berkeley.edu/~fateman/papers/software.pdf
> http://lemonodor.com/archives/000180.html
> http://www.franz.com/success/customer_apps/data_mining/cadabra.lh
> tml
<snip>
This applies to the post of Ron Garret as well.
So let's just take one of them for verification. It looks like I
had http://www.flownet.com/gat/papers/lisp-java.pdf offline on my
computer. So we might look at that.

It starts with big name "Lisp as an Alternative to Java". So I hope
I'd talk about the right article.
>From first few looks it seems it was done in around winter 2000. It
also reffered to some study that used 1.2.? version of JVM. So at
the first we should say IT'S AN OUTDATED study, that shouldn't be
used for any current comparisons, at least with Java.

Then they talked about the development time. 2 - 8.5 LISP
                                             4 - 63 Java
                                             3 - 25 C / C++
It seems strange. It shouldn't be so high for Java. (and for C if
not messing with pointers it should be more like 17 hours) Perhaps
that it depended on experience with programmer. Lets look how many
hour they have behind them. (I have just over 3000 if someone would
like to do some criticism.) LISP 6.5 years
                            Java 7.7 years
                            C / C++ 9.6 years
7.7? What version of Java was available when they started with
programming? Difficult counting 2000 - 7.7. I remmembered one
person talked something about company that required programmers
with 5 years experience back in the 1996. Wait a minute I remmeber
he said also something about... When was first version of JVM? Beta
was released in late 1995. Release version of the JVM was released
in the 1996. So that programmers was... I REFUSE to consider this
article as too much valid, if there are programers with longer
experience with the language than age of the language's compiler.
(They said they were volunteers from usenet so they were unlikely
people that builded the Java compiler.)
So we might consider that lower values as somewhat relevant.
However we don't know if they accounted for breaks and toilets, so
we could repair it by a factor of 2 hours. We will add 2 hours to
lower value, and subtract 2 hours from larger value. Now all times
are equal so we could say they spend around 2 hours with that
problem and rest of the time with retyping it into theirs favorite
language.
That 63 hours of programming in Java is only one result. It seems
to be caused by 50 hours of learning Java and 13 hours of typing
that algorithm into the language.
Median of Java is lower than C, it's expected behaviour. (If both
sides are using Eclipse, experienced programmers and perfect
libraries for development, Java time is around 0.8 of C. However it
would be stupid to do any races.)
Lower median of LISP could be caused be problem very easy to
program in LISP, or by students that did such problem recently in
the school.

Conclusion. That article has nearly no informations.

Should I expect that everyone is verifying Internet articles from 3
independent sources and in case of program tests, he does them as
well?



Relevant Pages