Re: Version after Version

Ouch.

Didn't think I was going to be shot down as an 'idiot' when I asked. Maybe
I'm an idiot. Don't feel like one. :-)

I'm sure there can be lots of interesting debate on the merits of one
language over the other. Since I really don't know one way or the other I
can simply absorb the wisdom from you and others here graciously sharing.

Knowing that you like Visual Basic, I was surprised about your comments on
'C'. ASM I can see as producing more efficient code. That's a no brainer
since it is so close to the machine level. But Visual Basic over 'c' in
efficiency? That throws me for a loop.

My understanding is that the 'C' compiler is mid-level and closer to the
machine level than VB, which is high-level. All the hand-holding VB provides
(easy to read coding, on the fly code debug, etc.) comes at the cost of
efficiency.

I'd be very interested in clarification on this.

Thanks.




"J French" <erewhon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:436546e7.55696351@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 15:36:57 -0600, "ProfitMaxTrading.com"
> <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"J French" <erewhon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:43650fa4.41547420@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Dec(startY);
>>>
>>> Gawd how I hate Dec and Inc in Delphi
>>>
>>
>>
>>JF,
>>
>>Why do you hate Dec and Inc?
>
> In ASM they mean one thing
> - in Delphi they mean one of many things
>
>>You know in VB it's so drawn out:
>
>>StartY = StartY - 1
>
> Which is optimized by the compiler
> - I like typing more, when I can see what will hit the .OBJ files
>
>>Almost tempted to write a small function to do the same as Dec in VB.
>
> Don't think of going there
> - that is naive - longer is often shorter
> - seldom is shorter longer when compiled
>
>>Coming from 'C++', I miss the shorter forms of inc and dec.
>
> I detest C--- also pure 'C'
>
> 'C' is for wimps who do not understand ASM
>
> Short source code does not mean quicker, faster, meaner .OBJ code (or
> even .DCU code)
>
> The first programming fallacy is that idiots believe that terse source
> compiles into better object code than explicit source.
>
> Avoid declaring an intermediate variable, and the compiler will
> declare one for you - thereby shafting ones attempt at efficiency.
>
> The reason I hate 'C' is because it propogates idiots who truly
> believe that terse ASCII leads to fast ASM
>
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Automatically generate variables
    ... header without errors. ... Then you are plainly an idiot. ... Therefore, the compiler it is designed for does not believe that it is C, only some language close to C. ... And I can't get what you're really saying here, ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: C vs C++ in Embedded Systems?
    ... I've fixed idiot PL/M-96 code. ... Ada programmer (great fun: them: "our code is in Ada, the language of ... and compiler suppport was spotty at best. ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
  • Re: Efficiency against frictional resistance
    ... Increasing momentum does not increase efficiency. ... friction for a lesser time: Friction and other impediments are what ... create heat and waste energy Paul. ... Even an idiot should be able to ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Efficiency against frictional resistance
    ... Increasing momentum does not increase efficiency. ... friction for a lesser time: Friction and other impediments are what ... create heat and waste energy Paul. ... Even an idiot should be able to ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: compiling to python byte codes
    ... > I can only have the self-study options and good books on compiler ... I certainly did not mean to declare you an idiot. ... point out that this is a complex topic, one where a Usenet thread can ... abstract syntax, intermediate representation, ...
    (comp.lang.python)