数据处理方面的进展 [英] Progress in data processing
问题描述
好的我正在运行vista。
我的旧机器因磁盘控制器故障而死机，我不得不购买一台新机器。新的一个比旧的便宜（1100欧元vs
620欧元），但内存的两倍（2GB），两倍的磁盘空间（bGB空间）（500GB）两倍的处理器（双核AMD 64位）
在Vista操作系统中，我安装了一台带有Windows XP的虚拟PC，
来记住旧的天。
然后，我使用
lcc-win32编译器编译了lcc-win32的源代码。
Vista：3.5秒
Windows XP（在Vista模拟下运行）4.4秒......
你能想象吗？
我想知道我是否将Windows 98仿真实际运行比Vista版本更快
，即使它运行在一台
虚拟PC中！ !!
一切都比较慢或最多速度相同。我开始使用微软C并且它需要永远，就像它在
XP下一样，但比在MSDOS下慢得多。
然后，我发现网上冲浪（slashdot指针）
http：// hubpages.com/hub/_86_Mac_Plus...lieve_Who_Wins
这些人测量了在1986年Mac下的常规任务所需的时间和Vista / AMD双核心。任务就像
做Excel电子表格，使用Word，启动系统等。
<报价>
查看结果！对于人们最常使用的功能，
1986年的老式Mac Plus超过2007年的AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+：9测试，以
8！在17项测试中，古董Mac赢得了53％的时间！包括从电源
按钮被按下到桌面启动和可用时间之后的令人惊讶的令人沮丧的52秒的AMD鞭打。
<结束报价>
是的，我们等待更长的时间今天等待我们在1986年等待。巨大的
好处可以在这里以这样的硬件速度用臃肿的语言写的臃肿的软件摧毁了我们今天运行的
。
为什么我仍然使用C语言？
正因为如此。因为语言仍然违反了
趋势。
简单的软件，简单的语言现在已成为过去。
而不是进步，我们有回归。我们必须更快地运行
以保持相同的速度。
我并不是说C是完美的或者我没有看到
语言中存在巨大差距。我所指的是，
需要一种简单快速的语言并不是目前的趋势
的软件开发。
实际上这对C来说可能是个好消息。显然，一些
应用程序在速度方面可能更好。 :-)
但是C的问题是被视为过时了。在我上次咨询工作的公司里，大多数人使用C ++
并且会嘲笑任何敢于质疑他们的人b / b
模板膨胀。
谁在乎他们说的速度。谁在乎磁盘空间或
内存消耗。
Ram便宜，磁盘便宜。 BLOAT IT !!!!!!
如果磁盘旋转50GB或内部带有
350GB，则磁盘成本相同。填写它！
现在怎么办？
有一个更简单的模板解决方案。它被称为
面向方面的编程。
这是下一部分的主题。这个
的目的是指出保持简单可以是一个
目标*本身*。为了保持它们的简单和脂肪，需要一种没有过度膨胀的语言。
C（有一些改进）符合这种描述。
jacob
2007年5月31日星期四21:28:29 +0200，jacob navia
< ja *** @ jacob.remcomp.frwrote一些非常合理的东西。
雅各布，
我完全同意（差不多）你所说的所有内容。
KH
-
电子邮件：info< at> simple-line< dot> de
jacob navia写道：
>
好的我正在运行vista。
.... snip ...
>
在Vista操作系统中，我安装了一台带有Windows XP的虚拟PC，
来记住过去的日子。
然后，我编译了lcc-w的源代码in32使用
lcc-win32编译器。
Vista：3.5秒
Windows XP（在Vista模拟下运行）4.4秒...
你能想象吗？
我想知道我是否会将Windows 98模拟它实际运行
$ b即使它运行在一台
的虚拟PC上，也比Vista版快了$ b！
.... snip .. 。
>
<报价>
查看结果！对于人们经常使用的功能而言，1986年的老式Mac Plus超过了2007年的AMD Athlon 64 X2
4800+：9次测试到8次！在17项测试中，古董Mac赢得了53％的时间
！从电源按钮被按下到
桌面启动并可用的时间，包括令人惊讶的52秒甩动的价格。
<结束语录>
为什么效仿W98？只需安装并运行即可。另请阅读以下内容。
-
< http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost。 txt>
< http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
< http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043。 html>
< http://kadaitcha.cx/vista/dogsbreakfast/index.html>
cbfalconer at maineline dot net
-
通过 http：//中的免费Usenet帐户发布www.teranews.com
jacob navia写道：
>
是的，我们等待更长的时间，因为我们在1986年等待。今天可以在这种硬件速度下获得的巨额
好处完全是
不是我们这些选择操作系统的人更快和l更新
每个新版本
...
>
但是C的问题是被视为过时。在我上次咨询工作的公司里，大多数人使用C ++
并且会嘲笑任何敢于质疑他们的人b / b
模板膨胀。
谁在乎他们说的速度。谁在乎磁盘空间或
内存消耗。
Ram便宜，磁盘便宜。 BLOAT IT !!!!!!
听起来像是一群贫穷的C ++程序员。 Piss穷人程序员
用各种语言工作。
-
Ian Collins。
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
解决方案On Thu, 31 May 2007 21:28:29 +0200, jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote 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
jacob navia wrote:>
OK I am running vista.
.... snip ...
>
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!!!
.... snip ...
>
< 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 >Why emulate W98? Just mount it and run. Also read the following.
--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
<http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
<http://kadaitcha.cx/vista/dogsbreakfast/index.html>
cbfalconer at maineline dot net
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
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 piss poor C++ programmers. Piss poor programmers
work in all languages.
--
Ian Collins.
这篇关于数据处理方面的进展的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
