02 July 2010, 02:22 | #21 | |
Registered User
|
Quote:
Since then, the interweb has proliferated slightly, giving programmers the ability to instantly share the knowledge of thousands of other programmers. Oh, and about 18 more layers of high-level interdependent crap between the programmer and the processor!! btst.b #6, $bfe001 - Now available as a 40Mb .NET app on Windows!! T |
|
02 July 2010, 10:07 | #22 | ||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
02 July 2010, 13:35 | #23 |
Linux snob
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Monkey Island
Posts: 997
|
Allegro has been around for a long time. The first version was for the Atari ST. But I think it is very low level, comparable rather to SDL than any of the above.
|
02 July 2010, 16:06 | #24 |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 457
|
I think that programming now is much better, and one must absolutly avoid assembler, it's a waste of time and creativity;
The importance is not the language, it's the end result, and from a programming point of view, it's the design/data structures and algorithms going into a program. All great researchers works with high level languages, and then publish papers that change the computer world; (ex: BSP trees and CSG (Constructive solid geometry)) If someone is seduced/impressed by assembler, a way better way to do something meaningfull is to design one's self cpu and computer, this way, one can learn about logic gates, flip flops, transistors, registers, multiplexers,etc...that is digital electronics. And as bonus, you get to design your own assembler, and understand it all inside out. This is what i try to do nowdays, it's not an easy thing to grasp. (at least for me) Here is someone who built his own computer out of TTL chips. http://www.homebrewcpu.com/ This is the shit! There are others who went on something like this. |
02 July 2010, 17:25 | #25 | ||
Computer Nerd
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Rotterdam/Netherlands
Age: 47
Posts: 3,751
|
Absolutely! And that's why we have all that lovely bloatware today.
Quote:
It is if you want high performance. Let's try Visual Basic Express. Last time I tried that was on a 550 Mhz Pentium 3, and the performance was less than a 68030 No kidding. Languages are important. Quote:
People should program in a language that they enjoy programming in |
||
02 July 2010, 21:29 | #26 |
Linux snob
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Monkey Island
Posts: 997
|
Disagree. If somebody had to recode, say, Amazon's web store in assembler from scratch that would have a measurable impact.
Yes, but not neccessarily speedwise. Maybe that the implementation of the VB program was bad, maybe M$ sucks at implementig the interpreter. Both could be amended. But different languages give you a different mind set. Try programming Towers of Hanoi in C (or assembler if you like) and then in Prolog. You'll be stunned. Totally agree, but they should try as many as possible. |
02 July 2010, 22:32 | #27 |
HOL/FTP busy bee
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Germany
Age: 46
Posts: 31,519
|
I'd say there a language for every platform + purpose. Seeing another thread where someone asks about porting an emulator that still has x86 ASM 'in it', it's possible 'in theory' to port it to the native ASM of the platform, but it not feasible. Someone mentioned that you lose the speed gain if you port those bits to C and he's most probably right. I've seen some attempts to code Windows apps in ASM and it just looks funny to see all those API calls, which really look odd. There's certainly a 'weapon of choice' like gligamesh said.
|
02 July 2010, 22:55 | #28 | |||
Computer Nerd
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Rotterdam/Netherlands
Age: 47
Posts: 3,751
|
Quote:
Quote:
Note: VB Express is compiled, which considering the slowness (might have been solved now, but I doubt it) is ridiculous. Also, interpreters are always slow compared to compiled code (and are only useful for writing small scripts, which should also be compilable in my opinion) Which I don't like much. I like low and mid level programming. Quote:
Most certainly not! What's the purpose in wasting (subjective!) my time with things like Python, Ruby and more of that stuff? I have absolutely no interest in languages like those. Anyway, many things I see today can easily be done in 68K or C, but they're not written in proper languages (although C needs a replacement badly) and thus those things are often laughably slow. Do it right in 68K and a '030 can do most of those things. With todays ridiculously fast machines many programmers don't seem to care about speed anymore. Computers become faster and software becomes slower Imagine how that would work in all other industries. Everything would come crashing down. Why so many programmers accept this is beyond reason (mine anyway) and there's clearly a need for a programming revolution. Will it happen? Probably not |
|||
02 July 2010, 23:08 | #29 |
HOL/FTP busy bee
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Germany
Age: 46
Posts: 31,519
|
Well, I guess you're talking about VB.Net Express, which isn't really 'compiled', but rather 'bytecode' which still runs through the framework 'interpreter'. It's not that bad, but surely nowhere near native C or even x86 ASM
|
02 July 2010, 23:30 | #30 | ||
Linux snob
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Monkey Island
Posts: 997
|
Building a thing that can do billions of monetary transactions in a fast, efficient and reliable way is not trivial. It's like you're telling a fine carpenter that his work is not art, because he is not using brushes and in the end there is no picture.
There are lots of Basic dialects, and I'd say OOBasic comes expecially close. (I don't like Basic either, though.) Quote:
Quote:
I mean, if you like assembler that is fine, but there are things beyond that you will never see. Oh come on, that is simply not true in general. You couldn't realistically compress a video sream to MPEG on the fly before y2k (without dedicated hardware). Try Linux without fancy stuff and with a custom made kernel. That will be fast. |
||
03 July 2010, 09:14 | #31 |
Citizen of Elthesh
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 949
|
This is what we call a deterministic discussion, we all know exactly what arguments will be used and we all know exactly where it's going, i.e. nowhere.
|
03 July 2010, 16:11 | #32 |
Banned
|
Deterministic or not, recurring or not, I for one find it interesting.
Just a remark, is "the Amiga" implied in this thread's question ? "Is programming the Amiga now much different than during the Amiga Era ?" or is it a wholly different topic ? I've heard the differences have to do with the way the code taps directly (sometimes even unsafely) into the hardware, things like that. Last edited by NewDeli; 03 July 2010 at 16:27. |
03 July 2010, 21:08 | #33 | |||||||
Computer Nerd
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Rotterdam/Netherlands
Age: 47
Posts: 3,751
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I mean programs that are heavy while they don't have to be. Perhaps I just have a pessimistic viewpoint |
|||||||
03 July 2010, 21:23 | #34 |
HOL/FTP busy bee
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Germany
Age: 46
Posts: 31,519
|
That's what they want you to believe No really, I meant the JIT compilation, which of course adds to the runtime for short programs. Anyway, I should really do other stuff and let you Amiga coders do your thing here
|
03 July 2010, 22:09 | #35 |
Linux snob
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Monkey Island
Posts: 997
|
I guess may answer is all predetermined, but the free will is an illusion anyway.
Concerning interpreters: You can have adaptive optimizations, like any modern JIT does. (JITs are byte code interpreters to me.) A very simple example: Imagine a standard C switch construct. They are equivalent to something like Code:
if(A){} else if(B){} else if(C){} ... else{} And for mindf...: The first example that comes to my mind is recursion. Many people who program C (and I bet that holds true for assembler programmers as well) know what recursion is, but they don't like it. People who are used to Lisp, Prolog etc. where it is "natural", use recursion to solve many problems in a more elegant way. Just a simple example, very probably not really good. But I think this is really getting off topic. (Prolog and Lisp were already supported on Amiga, but I think no one seriously made anything with them.) Last edited by gilgamesh; 04 July 2010 at 09:21. Reason: typo |
04 July 2010, 01:52 | #36 | |||
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: moon
Posts: 373
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Furthermore, I think you exaggerate the performance situation. It's true that the casually observed speed of some of today's software hasn't increased proportionally with that of hardware, but on the other hand today's software has a billion more features, higher extensibility and portability (due to "bloated" abstractions), better integration with the OS and/or other applications, higher accuracy, and probably more that doesn't immediately come to my mind. There's also a tendency to run a whole bunch of heavy software at the same time (except for very basic home users who panic if their document "goes missing" behind another application). You may feel that this evolution sucks if you don't need any of the modern fancy schmancy stuff that eats CPU cycles, and you're of course entitled to that opinion. Just saying that one man's bloat is another's killer feature. That said, I'm sure most home users could do with a simpler word processor than Word, even if a lot of businesses can't. |
|||
04 July 2010, 04:23 | #37 |
Total Chaos forever!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Waterville, MN, USA
Age: 49
Posts: 2,186
|
The problems with .NET are that the static compiler doesn't do enough optimization and leaves too much to the JIT. Effective compilers are slow. Especially when it comes to doing tricks like stuffing two 16-bit words in a 32-bit register like the experimental PBQP register allocator does on LLVM.
For that reason I think whole-program LLVM Bitcodes should be statically compiled at install time after some generic optimization at the programmer's machine. The link-time optimizations it does are vital to dynamic binding to make the bitcodes run on any system that LLVM supports. The JIT shouldn't be used unless absolutely necessary because using lazy compilation interferes with the execution of the program (eg. running a function that isn't compiled yet triggers a compile with a whole slug of optimizations to slow down the system until the function is compiled, never mind that it eliminates the possibility of cross-function optimization). |
04 July 2010, 10:20 | #38 |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: moon
Posts: 373
|
This is actually similar to how .NET works if you choose to do ahead-of-time compilation during installation. While the optimiser probably has room for the improvements you suggest and others, it does whole program optimisation rather than per method, and the JIT is only invoked if necessary.
|
05 July 2010, 06:44 | #39 |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Melbourne/Australia
Posts: 4,400
|
IDE's, context sensitive help....Google. Yep it's a bit easier now!
|
05 July 2010, 12:18 | #40 |
The Spanish Songstress
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Finland
Posts: 114
|
I'm with NovaCoder! Much easier to find the info you need when you need it.
It's nice you don't have to go asm everytime you want even a bit of performance nowadays - just throw more hardware at it. Saves my time as a coder, which means more money. That isn't saying asm isn't still very useful. Often needed to squeeze out the last bit of performance in en/decoders, for example. Compilers are still stupid (and will be for long, AI needed) and can't do autovectorization etc well. VC often screws even intrinsics (problematic register allocator), so even those aren't too useful. GCC needs a lot of coaching too to do the right thing. Wouldn't bother to write a whole program in asm in any situation today, though. And shouldn't be used for optimization either until other options are exhausted first (algorithmic improvements etc). Should stay HLL as long as possible during development cycle. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Classic WB 1.x era apps and game mods | chocolate_boy | Amiga scene | 1 | 10 March 2010 09:52 |
Computer speakers from Amiga era... | Paul_s | Nostalgia & memories | 10 | 18 November 2009 09:02 |
Win95-Era, Educational/Puzzle (Not amiga) | Nipedley | Retrogaming General Discussion | 3 | 09 March 2009 03:58 |
What are your top ten games from the 8-bit era? | Bombjacker | Retrogaming General Discussion | 34 | 07 August 2004 12:50 |
Bleem! - The end of an era | MethodGit | Retrogaming General Discussion | 14 | 21 November 2001 16:53 |
|
|