Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > Progress in data processing

Reply
Thread Tools

Progress in data processing

 
 
jacob navia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-31-2007
OK I am running vista.

My old machine died with a disk controller failure and I had to buy
a new one. The new one was cheaper than the old one (1100 Euros vs
620 Euros) but had twice as much RAM (2GB), twice as much disk
space (500GB) and twice as much processor (dual core AMD 64 bits)

Within the Vista OS, I installed a Virtual PC with windows XP,
to remember the old days.

And then, I compiled the source code of lcc-win32 using the
lcc-win32 compiler.

Vista: 3.5 seconds
Windows XP (running under Vista emulation) 4.4 seconds...

Can you imagine?

I wonder if I put a windows 98 emulation it will run actually
faster than the Vista version even if it is running in a
virtual PC!!!

Everything is slower or at best the same speed. I start
Microsoft C and it takes forever, just as it did under
XP, but much slower than it did under MSDOS.

Then, surfing the web I found (slashdot pointer)
http://hubpages.com/hub/_86_Mac_Plus...lieve_Who_Wins

Those guys measured the time it takes to do common tasks under
a Mac of 1986 and a Vista/AMD dual core. The tasks are like
doing an Excel spreadsheet, using Word, booting the system, etc.

< QUOTE >
Check out the results! For the functions that people use most often, the
1986 vintage Mac Plus beats the 2007 AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+: 9 tests to
8! Out of the 17 tests, the antique Mac won 53% of the time! Including a
jaw-dropping 52 second whipping of the AMD from the time the Power
button is pushed to the time the Desktop is up and usable.
< END QUOTE >

Yes, we wait longer for results today as we waited in 1986. The huge
benefits that could be here with such a hardware speed are completely
destroyed by the bloated software written in bloated languages that we
run today.

Why do I still use C?

Precisely because of that. Because the language is still against the
trend.

Simple software, simple languages are now a thing of the past.
Instead of progress we have regression. We have to run always
faster to keep at the same speed.

I am not implying that C is perfect or that I do not see the
huge gaps in the language. What I am pointing at, is that the
need for a simple and fast language is not in the present trends
of software development.

Actually this could be very good news for C. Obviously some
applications exist that could be better in terms of speed.

But the problem with C is that is seen as obsolete. Most people
at the company where I was in my last consulting jobs used C++
and would laugh at anyone that would dare question their
templated bloat.

Who cares about speed they said. Who cares about disk space or
memory consumption.

Ram is cheap, disk is cheap. BLOAT IT!!!!!!

A disk costs the same if it is spinning with 50GB or with
350GB inside. FILL IT!

What now?

There is a much simpler solution to templates. It is called
aspect oriented programming.

That is the subject of the next installment. The objective of this
one is to point out that keeping things simple can be an
objective *per se*. And to keep them simple and fats, a
language without excessive bloat is needed.

C (with some improvements) fits this description.

jacob

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Karl Heinze
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-31-2007
On Thu, 31 May 2007 21:28:29 +0200, jacob navia
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote some quite reasonable stuff.

Hi Jacob,

I completely agree with (almost) all of what you've said.

K. H.

--

E-mail: info<at>simple-line<dot>de
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ian Collins
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-31-2007
jacob navia wrote:
>
> Yes, we wait longer for results today as we waited in 1986. The huge
> benefits that could be here with such a hardware speed are completely
> destroyed by the bloated software written in bloated languages that we
> run today.
>

Not those of us who choose operating systems that get faster and lighter
with each new release...

>
> But the problem with C is that is seen as obsolete. Most people
> at the company where I was in my last consulting jobs used C++
> and would laugh at anyone that would dare question their
> templated bloat.
>
> Who cares about speed they said. Who cares about disk space or
> memory consumption.
>
> Ram is cheap, disk is cheap. BLOAT IT!!!!!!
>

Sounds like a bunch of **** poor C++ programmers. **** poor programmers
work in all languages.

--
Ian Collins.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jeremy Thomson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-31-2007
I have to smile.
I started working in D.P (thats Data Processing to you
whippersnappers) in 1985.
The computer was an old NCR century 100, its was 18 years old & I was
17.
This machine was one of the first to use MOS memory, 256K in all,
though it still had about 4K of boot core memory.
Every job was started with punched cards, we had a 'console' which was
a typewriter keyboard & thermal printer.
Disks were removable disk packs, they had been 'unstrapped' to
increase the storage to 200Mb, there were three, the drives were the
size of washing machines.
Backup was to 1/2inch mag tape at a maximun density of 3200BPI (Bits
per inch) though we ran them at 800BPI for safety.
Out biggest client was a chain of Menswear stores we loaded each days
transactions from there POS registers from cassette tape, about 35 of
them.
In that small system we ran Debtors, Creditors, General Ledger and
Sales Analysis, some clients had stock control.
Though the memory was 256K it was 'partitioned' into 4 so you could
run 4 jobs at once.
Most of the jobs would run in 48K, the OS used up 96K.
It didnt have virtual memory, you could page in code by program
control but it would be too slow to do that per transaction so a
debtors end of month roll really did run in 48K.
The systems were programmed in Cobol, the programs were patched with
patch cards to change clients names & addresses by poked the strings
into memory locations once the program was loaded. There were a only a
few utlities to copy, backup or sort files.
We had a 32K partition where we could run the editor, it drove a dumb
terminal that ran an edlin style line editor.

Makes me wonder what the computers will be like in another 40 years.

Jeremy Thomson


 
Reply With Quote
 
Cesar Rabak
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-01-2007
jacob navia escreveu:
> OK I am running vista.
>

[snipped]

>
> Then, surfing the web I found (slashdot pointer)
> http://hubpages.com/hub/_86_Mac_Plus...lieve_Who_Wins
>
>
> Those guys measured the time it takes to do common tasks under
> a Mac of 1986 and a Vista/AMD dual core. The tasks are like
> doing an Excel spreadsheet, using Word, booting the system, etc.


The comparison is not exactly fair as the versions, and because of it
the _functionality_ of the 'same' programs are too different.

If you could get hands on a version of Excel and Word (probably would be
2.0) from the same period for an Intel machine, you'll probably would
arrive at similar results.

You'll need to arrive at a means of running Windows 3.1 on your new box

Regards,

--
Cesar Rabak
 
Reply With Quote
 
Old Wolf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-01-2007
On Jun 1, 10:28 am, Ian Collins <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Not those of us who choose operating systems that get faster and
> lighter with each new release...


Does such a thing exist? Linux used to comfortably
fit on a CD; now it takes seven or more.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ian Collins
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-01-2007
Old Wolf wrote:
> On Jun 1, 10:28 am, Ian Collins <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Not those of us who choose operating systems that get faster and
>> lighter with each new release...

>
> Does such a thing exist? Linux used to comfortably
> fit on a CD; now it takes seven or more.
>

That'll be all the bundled extras, if Linux is like Solaris, the core OS
gets faster each release and still runs well on old hardware.

--
Ian Collins.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Clark Cox
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-01-2007
On 2007-05-31 19:37:36 -0700, Old Wolf <(E-Mail Removed)> said:

> On Jun 1, 10:28 am, Ian Collins <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Not those of us who choose operating systems that get faster and
>> lighter with each new release...

>
> Does such a thing exist? Linux used to comfortably
> fit on a CD; now it takes seven or more.


It still does fit on a CD. I've got a couple of distros in my CD-wallet.

--
Clark S. Cox III
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)

 
Reply With Quote
 
ArarghMail705NOSPAM@NOT.AT.Arargh.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-01-2007
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 00:19:43 -0200, Cesar Rabak <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>jacob navia escreveu:
>> OK I am running vista.
>>

>[snipped]
>
>>
>> Then, surfing the web I found (slashdot pointer)
>> http://hubpages.com/hub/_86_Mac_Plus...lieve_Who_Wins
>>
>>
>> Those guys measured the time it takes to do common tasks under
>> a Mac of 1986 and a Vista/AMD dual core. The tasks are like
>> doing an Excel spreadsheet, using Word, booting the system, etc.

>
>The comparison is not exactly fair as the versions, and because of it
>the _functionality_ of the 'same' programs are too different.
>
>If you could get hands on a version of Excel and Word (probably would be
>2.0) from the same period for an Intel machine, you'll probably would
>arrive at similar results.
>
>You'll need to arrive at a means of running Windows 3.1 on your new box


Word 2.0 seems to run just fine on Win98. (I just tried it).
I don't know about any later OS.
--
ArarghMail705 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com
BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html

To reply by email, remove the extra stuff from the reply address.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard Heathfield
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-01-2007
Old Wolf said:

> On Jun 1, 10:28 am, Ian Collins <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Not those of us who choose operating systems that get faster and
>> lighter with each new release...

>
> Does such a thing exist? Linux used to comfortably
> fit on a CD; now it takes seven or more.


DSL fits in 50MB, by design. A month or so ago, my son installed it onto
a ten-year-old laptop, and he's delighted with the performance gain.
Mind you, it /was/ running Win98, so I suppose that's not surprising.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Processing simple post data, not form data eselk2003@gmail.com ASP .Net 2 10-27-2008 03:07 PM
Post-Processing RAW vs Post-Processing TIFF Mike Henley Digital Photography 42 01-30-2005 08:26 AM
"Processing" progress bar/"in-between" page? Roy ASP General 3 01-23-2005 12:39 AM
Question: processing HTML, re-write default processing action of many tags Hubert Hung-Hsien Chang Python 2 09-17-2004 03:10 PM
Progress bar to show the progress of a task Charlie Zhang Java 3 08-16-2004 05:53 PM



Advertisments