cassandravoiton

14 anni fadiscuss

There is already a lot of mainframe offload. It seems that the middle range of mips is the sweet spot. Taking advantage of the services systems like JBOSS gives is, quite possibly, the last piece in the puzzel.

cassandravoiton

14 anni fadiscuss

Ha! I use it all the time. Just the other day someone asked what this mixed windowing system was - I just explained and they say Doh!

cassandravoiton

14 anni fadiscuss

Darn - commented in the wrong place - now I say Doh.

cassandravoiton

14 anni fadiscuss

Ha! I use it all the time. Just the other day someone asked what this mixed windowing system was - I just explained and they say Doh!

cassandravoiton

14 anni fadiscuss

Whilst I agree with the point that Linux UIs are not great - that has nothing what so ever to do with Linux. Linux knows nothing about the UI layer which is all X11. There is no need to replace the OS to get a better UI.

cassandravoiton

14 anni fadiscuss

More to the point - who cares. All these languages are hopelessly slow. If performance matters do it in a performant language like C++, C or FORTRAN. If it does not matter - then it does not matter and so stop going on about it.

cassandravoiton

14 anni fadiscuss

Sounds like a challenge. Should be do-able in managed COBOL using delegates.

cassandravoiton

14 anni fadiscuss

Closures as continuations in C++, maybe Stroustrup was right when he said it looks like a completely new language.

cassandravoiton

14 anni fadiscuss

You have not been looking at scientific computing. Matlab is more something people used for comp-sci of math. If it was not FORTRAN then it was not scientific computing.

cassandravoiton

14 anni fadiscuss

You shoot down our own argument. The video suggest C# and Java as alternatives to interpreted languages. By picking C you are deliberately trying to make your argument sound stronger than it is. The video also mentions the economic cost.

From an economics point of view you are just wrong. Because of the vast numbers of computers used in 'scale out' architectures the impact of code efficiency is enormously bigger than the cost of developers. If a developer's code runs on 10 or 100 machines then you are correct. But modern software runs on hundreds or even hundreds of thousand machines.

cassandravoiton

14 anni fadiscuss

If code runs faster then the user time is wasted less as well. That seems in alignment with the ideas behind the video.

cassandravoiton

14 anni fadiscuss

Yes - HTML5 would be much much better - it will come soon I expect.

cassandravoiton

14 anni fadiscuss

The page below shows the media peformance of Python (the fastest in these of PHP/Ruby/Python) as 49.73 times slower than the fastest compiled language. The seems pretty much between 10 and 100 to me.

http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/which-programming-lan...

 	compare 2	 |-	 |---	 25%	median	 75%	 ---|	 -|

Fortran Intel 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.35 1.87 7.84 C GNU gcc 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.21 1.55 2.36 4.97 C++ GNU g++ 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.26 1.68 2.28 2.28 ATS 1.00 1.00 1.24 1.45 2.30 3.90 7.24 Ada 2005 GNAT 1.04 1.04 1.22 1.51 1.84 2.76 4.81 Java 7 -server 1.40 1.40 1.59 1.90 2.14 2.97 4.76 Scala 1.38 1.38 1.90 2.76 3.43 5.72 10.21 Haskell GHC 1.53 1.53 2.60 2.80 4.36 7.00 15.15 Go 1.29 1.29 2.12 2.85 6.90 14.08 24.05 C# Mono 1.60 1.60 2.62 3.08 7.12 13.88 14.21 Lisp SBCL 1.12 1.12 1.81 3.40 4.24 7.89 11.20 OCaml 1.18 1.18 1.76 3.75 4.87 9.24 9.24 Pascal Free Pascal 1.53 1.53 2.47 4.37 7.49 15.03 24.20 Clojure 2.02 2.02 3.50 4.99 8.44 14.81 14.81 F# Mono 2.97 2.97 3.16 5.33 8.92 17.57 37.80 Racket 1.22 1.22 5.06 6.86 11.04 19.99 59.08 Erlang HiPE 5.17 5.17 7.99 10.79 15.44 26.61 41.54 Erlang 5.40 5.40 14.20 22.73 30.09 53.91 218.10 Python 3 1.22 1.22 9.25 49.73 68.86 131.37 131.37 PHP 1.90 1.90 10.29 50.17 83.42 193.10 260.90 Ruby 1.9 4.67 4.67 11.74 53.29 101.33 235.71 356.61 Ruby JRuby 5.75 5.75 26.67 58.81 115.06 247.65 266.51 Perl 4.00 4.00 22.61 103.29 126.82 225.35 225.35

cassandravoiton

14 anni fadiscuss

There are plenty of bench marks showing 10 to 100 times is in the ball part. Computers use masses of power because there are so many of them. As they get more efficient, their numbers increase. The benefit of using faster languages is constant irrespective of the efficiency of the machine on which it is running. How can wasting energy be OK? Even if you don't think it has climate change effects, it has economic and energy security effects - non of them good.

cassandravoiton

14 anni fadiscuss

But is that not the point of the post - that all the 'easy and cheep' comes at a huge cost to be planet and eventually to the company. Are C# and Java really that much harder to learn and use?

cassandravoiton

15 anni fadiscuss

Can you fail to deliver something if there is no time in which the failure can occur? Not sure...

cassandravoiton

15 anni fadiscuss

Actaully - they don't. I spent some time working with Oracle at a major installation where they could not come up with a good enough transactional fail secarios because a single mainframe was being replaced by a multiple DB node distributed system.

Oddly - the project failed...

Just because a large company says they do something - does not mean they actually do. Distributed Transcation as said by RDBMS companies actually is 'Distributed as long as nothing goes wrong'.

cassandravoiton

15 anni fadiscuss

I see your point. However, if information transfer is actually infinitely fast then the to physical points become one point in information space and the two generals become one general.

cassandravoiton

15 anni fadiscuss

Language gets in the here. But all 'distributed transaction' systems rely on the idea that once every party has agree to commit, it CAN commit. That might not be the case (I have seen it no be so often).

cassandravoiton

15 anni fadiscuss

Yes, I did read it... "

In practice, it is not di±cult to construct an algorithm that, except dur- ing rare periods of network instability, selects a suitable unique leader among a majority of nonfaulty acceptors. Transient failure of the leader-selection algorithm is harmless, violating neither safety nor eventual progress. One algorithm for leader selection is presented by Aguilera et al. [1] "

" The algorithm satisfies Stability because once an RM receives a decision from a leader, it never changes its view of what value has been chosen "

Fundamentally, the idea is that the leader is the transactional arbitrator using the RM as the recorder of that transaction.

cassandravoiton

Submissions

Secretes Of Profiling Java

Dev Partner Java - Profiling JRuby - Welcome To The Future

Using Samba For Windows/Linux Hg/Git Repo's

Fast Serialization Memory Management In Java

Immutability - The Key To Caching

Very Fast Sin Function In Java

Can A Mac Book Pro Retina 15 Battery Last A Full Day?

Java: Swap Based Memory Management

General Electric Take Java/Invokedynamic to another level

TIOBE Dropped A Massive Clanger - Java is still Number 1

Windows 8, Virtual Box Host On Macbook Pro Retina Host - First Look

Link HTML5 Audio Tag To Canvas Vilualisation

Redhat/Micro Focus/JBoss And COBOL - 4 in a bed?

HTML5: Amazing Visual Animation Effects

Perforce Embraces GIT - And Why It Matters

Can You Overheat A Macbook Pro Retina?

Java Long Loops Block Threads, JVM Performance Death

C++11: Future Chaining For Easy, Highly Threaded Execution

Video Review Of Haiku OS

Scala Less Popular Than COBOL: Programming In The Real World

comments