.NET Performance
-
Go to the kitchen right now. Hurry there is not much time left!
Time left for what??? ;P ;P ;P So, instead of answering to what I said in the post, you gave a low blow. :rolleyes:
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." - Jesus
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi -
Look, If you're not (and do not plan on) selling your services to a company that has bought into the MS line and will happily pay for all the new toys you desire, then i'd say it's rather unwise for you to be using MS tech. There's better, lower-cost stuff out there for many purposes. For those of us feeding on the MS teat, your rantings sound more like sour grapes. Either have fun doing what makes you the $$$, or find something else to do - such criticism is only useful if you follow it with: "and so this is what i'm going to do personally to correct this terrible problem."
Shog9
Let your mercy spill / On all these burning hearts in hell If it be your will / To make us well...
I am concerned at the long term costs to OUR societies. The lost opportunites the increased taxes and product costs that will flow from having a worldwide monopolistic power lead a large segment of the planets developers into such a proprietry solution. As to a response, I feel powerless against the beast. The open source communities are making small steps but I wonder if it will be enough.
-
I am concerned at the long term costs to OUR societies. The lost opportunites the increased taxes and product costs that will flow from having a worldwide monopolistic power lead a large segment of the planets developers into such a proprietry solution. As to a response, I feel powerless against the beast. The open source communities are making small steps but I wonder if it will be enough.
-
For those of you who are convinced that .NET and CLR will outperform C++ with a P3/P4 optimizing compiler please go into the kitchen now and fashion a helmet out of aluminium foil. The microsoft marketing / brainwashing / indoctrination signals being beamed from the satelltes are obviously too strong in your area. Will .NET reduce programmer effort / time to market / life cycle maintenence costs ? I do not know. What I do know is that if ms had developed all the appropriate libraries in open source c++ along with a new compiler. We would all be better of. But instead they are trying to move everyone into a proprietry managed environment where they can licence .net server products for big bucks just like sun and their J2EE / JMS vendors. just having a little rant
Joey Bloggs wrote: What I do know is that if ms had developed all the appropriate libraries in open source c++ along with a new compiler. We would all be better of. I don't understand, how this can improve performance? Philip Patrick Web-site: www.stpworks.com "Two beer or not two beer?" Shakesbeer
-
Joey Bloggs wrote: What I do know is that if ms had developed all the appropriate libraries in open source c++ along with a new compiler. We would all be better of. I don't understand, how this can improve performance? Philip Patrick Web-site: www.stpworks.com "Two beer or not two beer?" Shakesbeer
Open VC6 go to Project, Settings, C/C++, Code Generation and see what is the lastest processor that you can optimize for. Plus various other comments in this thread about heap based object instantiation etc. We won't even get into gc impacts on performance but do you really think letting the machine figure out what memory your using instead of telling it is going to improve performance.
-
But what about Mono and SharpDevelop? BTW, Do you use VC++?
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." - Jesus
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma GandhiI'm not so worried about the development environments. Its the .NET Server products that will be sold to every customer needing to run large .net solutions that are going to cost the big bucks. since v1.1 or 1.2 i can't quite remember
-
I'm not so worried about the development environments. Its the .NET Server products that will be sold to every customer needing to run large .net solutions that are going to cost the big bucks. since v1.1 or 1.2 i can't quite remember
-
But will they have to use those, or can alternative be made?
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." - Jesus
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma GandhiI really don't know. Is the CLR rated to run efficently on a multiprocessor 64bit XP platform for example and will it come with the OS or will you have to licence it seperately ?
-
Open VC6 go to Project, Settings, C/C++, Code Generation and see what is the lastest processor that you can optimize for. Plus various other comments in this thread about heap based object instantiation etc. We won't even get into gc impacts on performance but do you really think letting the machine figure out what memory your using instead of telling it is going to improve performance.
I actually was talking about "open source", that can improve performance. Philip Patrick Web-site: www.stpworks.com "Two beer or not two beer?" Shakesbeer
-
I really don't know. Is the CLR rated to run efficently on a multiprocessor 64bit XP platform for example and will it come with the OS or will you have to licence it seperately ?
The .NET Framework for 64-bit platforms is free. Also, you can run the same assembly in both 64-bit and 32-bit environments without re-compiling, provided that you don't have any unsafe code in that assembly (which could be wrapped in a seperate DLL as necessary). BTW, Joey, I don't intend to hurt your feelings or cause excessive strife between us. I have a different viewpoint, but let me know if something I say hurts your feelings. :rose:
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." - Jesus
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi -
jdunlap wrote: NET will out-perform native code, because of its optimizations. Do you know if .NET will make use of MMX, SIMD ...?? Also I was thinking one of the things that can really slow some algorithms written in C is float to int conversions. C states it must truncate, but the hardware rounds by default so the compiler has to remove the rounding effect and also add out of bounds checking. In a bilinear interpolation algorithm I used a couple of asm statements to do the conversion and it speeded up the algorithm by more than 10 times the original code speed... I really needed that because the images were taking several seconds to scale (they were over 30MB) and that was too long for the user to wait to view them... John
I find it hard to believe that the CLR will be able to analyze your vb.net or c# source code and determine the algorithim you are trying to implement and call the appropriate simd mmx instructions etc. However you are certainly able to call un/managed C++ functions from those environments and presumably you can still put asm code into your MC++ / C++ function ?
-
I find it hard to believe that the CLR will be able to analyze your vb.net or c# source code and determine the algorithim you are trying to implement and call the appropriate simd mmx instructions etc. However you are certainly able to call un/managed C++ functions from those environments and presumably you can still put asm code into your MC++ / C++ function ?
However moving your data between the managed and unmanaged environments may take quite a performance hit, if you need to access it piecemeal it both environments ?
-
I actually was talking about "open source", that can improve performance. Philip Patrick Web-site: www.stpworks.com "Two beer or not two beer?" Shakesbeer
Well only in the sense that a variety of different people over time might be able to contribute optimizations I guess.
-
The .NET Framework for 64-bit platforms is free. Also, you can run the same assembly in both 64-bit and 32-bit environments without re-compiling, provided that you don't have any unsafe code in that assembly (which could be wrapped in a seperate DLL as necessary). BTW, Joey, I don't intend to hurt your feelings or cause excessive strife between us. I have a different viewpoint, but let me know if something I say hurts your feelings. :rose:
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." - Jesus
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma GandhiNo problems, this has filled a spare hour up nicely. I just hope that it doesn't get out of control when all our american friends wakeup.
-
For those of you who are convinced that .NET and CLR will outperform C++ with a P3/P4 optimizing compiler please go into the kitchen now and fashion a helmet out of aluminium foil. The microsoft marketing / brainwashing / indoctrination signals being beamed from the satelltes are obviously too strong in your area. Will .NET reduce programmer effort / time to market / life cycle maintenence costs ? I do not know. What I do know is that if ms had developed all the appropriate libraries in open source c++ along with a new compiler. We would all be better of. But instead they are trying to move everyone into a proprietry managed environment where they can licence .net server products for big bucks just like sun and their J2EE / JMS vendors. just having a little rant
Regarding .NET performance, we are too much in the early phase I am afraid. The CLR is changing fast, and by reading a few CLR horse weblogs, I can tell they are trying their best to push the envelope. JIT compilers will be better and better in the future, and if they can really take advantage of the processor, then you'll end up with better native code in the end. I believe that regarding JIT compilers, we are not quite there yet, but then why wouldn't you start your own business and sell a JIT compiler? With a static C/C++ compiler, you end up distributing as many versions as processors you target. And, more to the point, are you sure that compiler significantly takes advantage of MMX instructions, etc. all by itself? Haven't we a chicken and egg issue here? Plus, dedicated Intel compilers[^] versus MS compilers. I believe that the fight against monopoly is somewhere else, and more about the licensing, OEM (key apps like the web browser). It's really another debate.
-
Regarding .NET performance, we are too much in the early phase I am afraid. The CLR is changing fast, and by reading a few CLR horse weblogs, I can tell they are trying their best to push the envelope. JIT compilers will be better and better in the future, and if they can really take advantage of the processor, then you'll end up with better native code in the end. I believe that regarding JIT compilers, we are not quite there yet, but then why wouldn't you start your own business and sell a JIT compiler? With a static C/C++ compiler, you end up distributing as many versions as processors you target. And, more to the point, are you sure that compiler significantly takes advantage of MMX instructions, etc. all by itself? Haven't we a chicken and egg issue here? Plus, dedicated Intel compilers[^] versus MS compilers. I believe that the fight against monopoly is somewhere else, and more about the licensing, OEM (key apps like the web browser). It's really another debate.
Are there not compilers that will produce optimized code for a variety of targets and branch to the appropriate chunk at runtime having identified which target the code is running on ? Its been so long since i've looked at this kind of stuff. I agree with you on the mmx simd issues, its hard to see the CLR taking advantage of them all by itself. Sure .NET is only part of the strategy but I suspect its a bigger part than you are proposing.
-
For those of you who are convinced that .NET and CLR will outperform C++ with a P3/P4 optimizing compiler please go into the kitchen now and fashion a helmet out of aluminium foil. The microsoft marketing / brainwashing / indoctrination signals being beamed from the satelltes are obviously too strong in your area. Will .NET reduce programmer effort / time to market / life cycle maintenence costs ? I do not know. What I do know is that if ms had developed all the appropriate libraries in open source c++ along with a new compiler. We would all be better of. But instead they are trying to move everyone into a proprietry managed environment where they can licence .net server products for big bucks just like sun and their J2EE / JMS vendors. just having a little rant
-
Are there not compilers that will produce optimized code for a variety of targets and branch to the appropriate chunk at runtime having identified which target the code is running on ? Its been so long since i've looked at this kind of stuff. I agree with you on the mmx simd issues, its hard to see the CLR taking advantage of them all by itself. Sure .NET is only part of the strategy but I suspect its a bigger part than you are proposing.
Joey Bloggs wrote: and branch to the appropriate chunk at runtime having identified which target the code is running on I am not aware of that. What I know is that there are opportunities for Mono-based JIT compilers for instance. Joey Bloggs wrote: I suspect its (strategy) a bigger part than you are proposing What has made me furious lately is the rate at which they are retiring : - the older SDKs/DDKs/..., read: the non .NET SDKs - the documentation and archive (MSJ and a couple of online papers are still available, but how long will this last?) - and the fact they fill the MSDN library with 100% .NET stuff In other words, if you have old MSDN CDs, you are a lucky guy and had better keep them. Of course, they have been doing all this silently. MS has the right to do so, and invoke the immense amount of storage and maintenance cost needed to keep all of this running. But I don't buy this. Customer satisfaction is against retiring software that fast, especially when you know that almost everyone is using their tools (C/C++) to compile code on the Windows platform. Regarding the .NET picture, as long as the .NET run-time is free, available to everyone ; as long as MS doesn't force developers to certify the apps they are willing to distribute ; as long as MS enforces upward compatibility (in all VS.NET releases, MS has not given a shit about backward compatibility) across the product upgrades, I believe we have a platform to rely on. But then, if this wouldn't hold true any longer, the platform might well fall under itself.
-
I'm not so worried about the development environments. Its the .NET Server products that will be sold to every customer needing to run large .net solutions that are going to cost the big bucks. since v1.1 or 1.2 i can't quite remember
Hmm, you cannot possibly tell me that going the J2EE route will actually be cheaper. Are you talking IBM, Sun and Oracle or should we be running enterprises on LAMP? It sounds more to me that you just have a problem with Microsoft. It's better that you flat out admit that rather than diss a platform that's pretty damn good at what it does for the most part. I'm also curious as to what platform you develop for day to day and what your feelings are about it :-) What's the difference between a C++ programmer and God? God knows he's not a C++ programmer : anon
-
For those of you who are convinced that .NET and CLR will outperform C++ with a P3/P4 optimizing compiler please go into the kitchen now and fashion a helmet out of aluminium foil. The microsoft marketing / brainwashing / indoctrination signals being beamed from the satelltes are obviously too strong in your area. Will .NET reduce programmer effort / time to market / life cycle maintenence costs ? I do not know. What I do know is that if ms had developed all the appropriate libraries in open source c++ along with a new compiler. We would all be better of. But instead they are trying to move everyone into a proprietry managed environment where they can licence .net server products for big bucks just like sun and their J2EE / JMS vendors. just having a little rant
Joey Bloggs wrote: For those of you who are convinced that .NET and CLR will outperform C++ with a P3/P4 optimizing compiler I don't think anyone would belive that would be the case. Sounds like your connfused. Joey Bloggs wrote: Will .NET reduce programmer effort / time to market / life cycle maintenence costs ? I do not know. Well I'm betting it will. Joey Bloggs wrote: But instead they are trying to move everyone into a proprietry managed environment where they can licence .net server products for big bucks just like sun and their J2EE / JMS vendors. Whats the problem - its an open standard. Have you not heard of Mono, Rotor or DotGNU? Have a look at these. These are free, and unlike Sun with JBoss, Microsoft is not trying to stiffle copies - thats why the put out Rotor as a reference implementation for pepople to see how it works and bring other vendors faster to market. Sounds like you need to get your facts straight. http://www.southern-storm.com.au/portable_net.html[^] http://www.dotgnu.org/[^] http://www.go-mono.org/[^] Joey Bloggs wrote: What I do know is that if ms had developed all the appropriate libraries in open source c++ along with a new compiler. We would all be better of. Yeh, for C++ programmers. Not for every one else. I want to be able to cleanly interface some of my Perl code with C# and C++, and .NET allows you to do that.
"Je pense, donc je mange." - Rene Descartes 1689 - Just before his mother put his tea on the table. Shameless Plug - Distributed Database Transactions in .NET using COM+