[antlr-interest] C++ beginner questions
Akhilesh Mritunjai
virtualaspirin at yahoo.com
Mon Oct 3 08:32:28 PDT 2005
Hi Ian
--- Ian Kaplan <iank at bearcave.com> wrote:
> My experience with Java scanners and other
> language like processing
> tools (my Java disassembler, for examle) is that
> Java is slower than
> C++. Another data point: I have a query language
Umm, basic question... do any of examples you quotes
here help you pay bills ? If yes, I think you can
easily calculate ratio of cost of one CPU hour to cost
of one HUMAN hour.
Then take a complex project that takes, say, approx 3
man years of effort in Java Vs 4 man years for C++
(which includes debugging memory problems).
If I need to complete it in an year, I need to find 1
extra 'perfectly fitting' guy or 2 'fitting' guys, if
I use C++. Finding them is neither cheap nor easy!
OTOH, I can ring up my local shop in morning and have
them deliver 5 fast computers by lunch-time for the
cost of two *month* salary of one 'fitting' guy.
So unless C++ is so "ridiculously" fast that the cost
savings in machines outweights human time saving.
Yes, I calculated it in hard figures.
No, even at 50X (thats times, not percent) speedup I
don't break even.
Yes, this is true even in India (Namaste! :-) )
No, We're not a body shop
Yes, I know C++ *very* well
No, I'm not a zealot by any stretch of imagination
Yes, I believe in principle that humans shouldn't be
*made* to do the work that machines can do.
-- Akhilesh
> processor that is
> implemented in Java that does tree-to-tree
> transformation to
> optimize queries. Here again, Java is
> surprisingly slow. I would,
> in fact, be nervous about implementing a compiler
> in Java because of
> performance issues.
>
> As I've written here before: it is a simple fact:
> Java has
> interpretive overhead. For what ever reason Java
> string processing
> also seems slow. So this clam that Java beats
> native code must
> first address why the overhead of the interpreter
> is not an issue.
> And don't feed me that line about the JIT
> compiler. JIT is fine for
> long running servers. But a JIT compiler is not
> likely to do a run
> once application like a compiler much good.
>
> All this said, I use Java more these days than
> C++. There are many
> applications which access databases or networks,
> where this overhead
> is far and away the bottleneck. Here the amazing
> class libraries
> available with Java make it a huge win.
>
> Ian
>
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
More information about the antlr-interest
mailing list