X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Envelope-From:	paubert AT iram DOT es
Date:	Wed, 8 Jul 2015 09:18:59 +0200
From:	"Gabriel Paubert (paubert AT iram DOT es) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To:	"Dave McGuire (mcguire AT neurotica DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] gEDA/gschem still alive?
Message-ID:	<20150708071859.GA13243@visitor2.iram.es>
References:	<20150706200609 DOT GD24178 AT localhost DOT localdomain>
	<CAC4O8c9f0pLsLu_dyuO5ggh7RmHY1vAA=UUhk9AE0JYZb4mhBQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<CAM2RGhQfPO31-1Uyc3kC7w286r0VD7c41UZEZcyYquzknCxbsQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<20150707060409 DOT GB14357 AT localhost DOT localdomain>
	<CAOP4iL2C_LU=RQy5FWYF-7RrHW6tqhqqyFJGjkwLQ2AD7FiYJA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<1436287952 DOT 678 DOT 26 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de>
	<559C0F7E DOT 7010009 AT neurotica DOT com>
	<1436295556 DOT 678 DOT 91 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de>
	<E90F2D99-6421-4D1A-BF28-73992A21BA1F AT icloud DOT com>
	<559C3901 DOT 9090205 AT neurotica DOT com>
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<559C3901.9090205@neurotica.com>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Spamina-Bogosity:	Unsure
X-Spamina-Spam-Score:	-1.0 (-)
X-Spamina-Spam-Report:	Content analysis details: (-1.0 points)
	pts rule name description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	-1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
	0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.
	See
	http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
	for more information.
	[URIs: icloud.com]
	-0.0 BAYES_20 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 5 to 20%
	[score: 0.1278]
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 04:39:29PM -0400, Dave McGuire (mcguire AT neurotica DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
> On 07/07/2015 03:38 PM, Chris Smith (space DOT dandy AT icloud DOT com) [via
> geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
> >> The new languages are fast! Very fast! I have seen many benchmarks,
> >> micro and real life. D, Rust, Nim are very close to C generally. There
> >> may be a few exceptions, but generally that can be fixed with minimal
> >> rewriting of the code. And Crystal and Julia are really fast although.
> >> Go is generally a bit slower. Even Java is very very fast today, but is
> >> limited by the startup time for the VM of course. 
> > 
> > Is it really that those languages have become faster, or is it simply that the advances in CPU processing power means that the differences between them are drowned out by other bottlenecks, like IO? I wonder if you'd get similar results if these languages were benchmarked on a 486?
> 
>   If all developers were forced to test their code on very slow
> machines, the world would be a much happier place.  Yet another reason
> why I moved from server-side development entirely into embedded
> firmware, where code performance still matters.
> 

F�ully agreed. These days, they also should be forced to use
non-SSD systems for tests (simply strace -e open any "modern"
application, that's disgusting).

    Gabriel

- Raw text -