New topic
Printableian said: teller said: ian said: I didn't say that, did I? What has that got to do with anything? I didn't even mention interpreted code did I?
That said though, with some VM trickery I've had Java apps running within about 5% of the performance of native code which isn't bad at all. What does WCMDA have to do with NTT Docomo? Interpreted code is a layer of abstraction that slows things down the further away you get from the actual hardware. That's why assembly language is fastest of all, and that's why OO is slower than procedural--because the OO layer generalizes certain constructs whereas the procedural code can treat "OO" behavior as strictly optional--only putting such behavior where it needs to be. It's a valid generalization, IMO, and not at all religious. Of course, if your inner loops are tight, all is well and everything flies fast. Knee-jerk? Sheeesh...I'm an old man...my knee can no longer jerk! I can barely jerk off! I know what interpreted code is Teller, I'm a bloody software engineer. I've designed Java VM technology from the ground up, so I don't need a software engineering 101 masterclass from you thanks very much. However, you brought it up despite the fact that it has nothing to do with objected oriented design or object oriented programming. High level object oriented source code can produce extremely tight, low level machine code. Your analogy doesn't work, they are two different topics and two different issues. There is no such thing as an "OO layer" and OO design does not mandate "generalised certain constructs" as you put it - not when the code is compiled. You are for some reason grouping OO design and OOP with interpreted code. The two issues have nothing to do with each other. Will you ever admit, for once in your life, when you are out of your depth and talking about stuff you don't understand?  You may have a grasp of the basics, but if you haven't got a substantial amount of OO experience why not just try listening for once instead of trying to be an authority all the time? Sheesh.I'm a software engineer too...one who understand the science all the way down to the level of the flip flops, even the transistors themselves--I built part of a CPU using nothing but TTL hardware once; I'm not talking out of my ass. I'm not making shit up. I almost have a degree in CS/EE. OO, interpreters, both are layers of abstraction that make life easier for the coder. They ARE related--they are layers that hide the hardware details; the CPU details; the raw data and raw bits; the more you hide the more you have to translate into the hidden reality of the CPU. We may disagree about OO philosophy, but why the personal attack? Fear is the mind-killer. | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
teller said: I'm a software engineer too...one who understand the science all the way down to the level of the flip flops, even the transistors themselves--I built part of a CPU using nothing but TTL hardware once; I'm not talking out of my ass. I'm not making shit up. I almost have a degree in CS/EE. OO, interpreters, both are layers of abstraction that make life easier for the coder. They ARE related--they are layers that hide the hardware details; the CPU details; the raw data and raw bits; the more you hide the more you have to translate into the hidden reality of the CPU. We may disagree about OO philosophy, but why the personal attack? Firstly, there was no personal attack, and I told you that. Secondly - OO is not a layer of abstraction! It's a design methodology and a programming paradigm, which is supported by some high level programming languages. As for hiding the hardware details etc - you can say that of ANY modern high-level programming language, whether it is procedural or object oriented. Additionally, hiding the hardware details in the high-level source code does NOT mean that the machine code which is executed after compilation is any slower or less efficient! Don't you understand that? OO is NOT a layer of abstraction! OO is NOT by necessity slower than procedural. OO is NOT by necessity related to interpreted programming languages. The point is - an object oriented programming language is not be necessity "slower" - a good compiler for a high level object oriented language can produce code which is just as tight and efficient as with a functional language. By the way, since you made an issue of it, I do have a degree in computer science. I've been coding for 20 years, and my experience is split evenly between mathematics, electronics, microprocessor design, and software, networking etc. My work is running in millions of devices all over the world. We aren't "disagreeing" about OO philosophy - you are just incorrect in your understanding of OO. I'm sorry that you struggle so much to realise that. No big deal, we can't all know everything. You just seem to be confusing data abstraction with hardware abstraction layers. They are not the same thing. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Morning Ian...
Firstly, I apologize for overreacting...my ego combined with drink took your disapproval personally; it probably has something to do with the other couple of times you've tried to take me down a notch. I hate being told that I'm out of my depth when I'm not, and it's worse when it's by someone I respect. As for OO, my generalization comes from how compilers are constructed. An OO language has extra baggage a procedural language does not; but you weren't talking about languages: Now if you want to insist that OO is nothing more than a methodology, that's fine. I suppose one could even build an OO design in a procedural language (with pain and suffering). And if you say an OO compiler exists that somehow generates executable code that runs just as fast as a similar procedurally designed program, I'll have to take your word for it...I still feel very skeptical about this (why did John Carmack wait so long before moving the Quake codebase to C++?). Maybe this is just a disagreement about definitions--when you say "OO" I think of all kinds of things, not just methodology. How often is OO not done in an OO language?! So I bind the two in my mind. Sorry if this makes me come off sounding like an idiot... Fear is the mind-killer. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
teller said: Firstly, I apologize for overreacting...my ego combined with drink took your disapproval personally; it probably has something to do with the other couple of times you've tried to take me down a notch. I hate being told that I'm out of my depth when I'm not, and it's worse when it's by someone I respect.
No worries Teller, thanks. Let's agree to drop the subject then since it's going nowhere. My points stand though
Maybe we need a programmer's forum haha... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I repeat 
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ian said: Maybe we need a programmer's forum haha...
Good idea! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| Moderator
|
My PSG got mixed up with my PSKE, then it had a KSNHYX reaction when the KZXR went haywire and intertwined with the ADWA!  
Then to top it all off, my 98KMHZZ failed while I was redirecting the IOPP!!! Can you believe it! I was so pissed! 
Anyway, Thank God my MX and XM didn't merge! I would've just chucked it all!
 |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
moderatorJune7 said: My PSG got mixed up with my PSKE, then it had a KSNHYX reaction when the KZXR went haywire and intertwined with the ADWA!
Then to top it all off, my 98KMHZZ failed while I was redirecting the IOPP!!! Can you believe it! I was so pissed!
Anyway, Thank God my MX and XM didn't merge! I would've just chucked it all!
 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
My PSG got mixed up with my PSKE, then it had a KSNHYX reaction when the KZXR went haywire and intertwined with the ADWA!
Then to top it all off, my 98KMHZZ failed while I was redirecting the IOPP!!! Can you believe it! I was so pissed!
Anyway, Thank God my MX and XM didn't merge! I would've just chucked it all!
See, that's exactly the problem I was having. I just decided to toss my TRC and stick with the ONAL. It still isn't as good as the SOTT, but it'll get you by until something better comes along. Edit: Keep in mind, TGE was only meant as an intermediate step, so you really do have to go to TRC before you add ONAL, or your whole system will just freak. [This message was edited Mon Mar 3 7:24:09 PST 2003 by tackam] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Hey stop making fun of the nerds! Attack nerds, attack! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |