Markus Mottl wrote:
> Programs on modern architectures depend so heavily on cache behaviour that
> performance claims for code-bloating techniques seem to be rather
> suspicious. I'd also like to see substantial benchmarks that prove the
> merits...
Code bloat can be expensive, however so can boxed values.
> Considering the improvements on the hardware side in terms of processor
> performance, 10% seems very insignificant to me
Sure it does. But you are not thinking rationally.
You're thinking emotionally. So try this: in doing your job,
you find a 10% productivity improvement. Not much eh?
Try _over_ an extra months holiday! Are you kidding 10% isn't
significant?
> Correctness, maintainability and portability are (well, should be) the
> primary concerns in a world that changes fast - not "fast" programs...
It is for those who commission and pay for the code to determine
what their strategic goals are. We have code written in _assembler_.
> If your employer says that you should switch to lower-level, unsafe
> programming languages to get 10% more performance, tell him that he
> should rather buy new hardware (if you dare to! ;-)
My employer isn't the user of the software but the puveryor of it.
> If he doesn't want, present him an estimate of the costs of more errors...
At present, the cost of C++ errors is much lower. That is because
the company employs a lot of expert C++ programmers. And only one,
nonexpert, ocaml programmer.
-- John (Max) Skaller, mailto:skaller@maxtal.com.au 10/1 Toxteth Rd Glebe NSW 2037 Australia voice: 61-2-9660-0850 checkout Vyper http://Vyper.sourceforge.net download Interscript http://Interscript.sourceforge.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 25 2000 - 19:03:33 MET DST