.NET Performance
-
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+
Giles wrote: I don't think anyone would belive that would be the case. Sounds like your connfused. I'm not confused. Its other people that i'm worried about. See earlier responses in the thread. Giles wrote: 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 Yes they get a few brownie points for this and even score one over sun. I wonder if these orginizations will have the resources to keep up when microsoft change the CLR to support the .net framework v2.x or 3.x Giles wrote: 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. Couldn't COM Interop have wrapped COM wrappers of the C++ libraries and provided a solution for everyone ?
-
Well as a windows developer for 13 years and a java developer for the last 3. I can almost guarentee that they will not be able to hit that sort of performance level. I doubt that they will get the CLR much faster than the JVM. And beyond that heap based instantiation of 'every' object and no placment new etc almost guarentees that you cannot write faster code.
Joey Bloggs wrote: I can almost guarentee that they will not be able to hit that sort of performance level. Why? The .NET CLR is nothing like the Java JVM. Java bytecode is compiled whenever it is used. The .NET CLR precompiles the code and saves it on disk to use next time. There's no reason why it can't get extremely close to straight compiled code. And just in case you're wondering, no, I'm not a big fan of .NET for other reasons. I'm learning C# at the moment, but I don't envisage using it as my main language. I much prefer standard C++.
Ryan
"Punctuality is only a virtue for those who aren't smart enough to think of good excuses for being late" John Nichol "Point Of Impact"
-
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 ?
Joey Bloggs wrote: 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. Read a book on advanced compiler design. You might be surprised to know that they actually do this quite effectively. They don't determine the algorithm as such, but they do certainly use the advanced instructions as appropriate. Compilers (particularly code optimisers) are incredibly difficult things to write, but they are incredibly good at what they do.
Ryan
"Punctuality is only a virtue for those who aren't smart enough to think of good excuses for being late" John Nichol "Point Of Impact"
-
Joey Bloggs wrote: I can almost guarentee that they will not be able to hit that sort of performance level. Why? The .NET CLR is nothing like the Java JVM. Java bytecode is compiled whenever it is used. The .NET CLR precompiles the code and saves it on disk to use next time. There's no reason why it can't get extremely close to straight compiled code. And just in case you're wondering, no, I'm not a big fan of .NET for other reasons. I'm learning C# at the moment, but I don't envisage using it as my main language. I much prefer standard C++.
Ryan
"Punctuality is only a virtue for those who aren't smart enough to think of good excuses for being late" John Nichol "Point Of Impact"
That is not necessarily the case. JVM's can and do keep and reuse compiled code if they have memory to do so. I am not aware of a JVM that saves code to disk though. I'm not sure it that is for security reasons ? Presumably code cached on disk could be altered by other code executing in the CLR. I wonder how long it will be before someone exploits some bug in the CLR to execute their malicious code off the disk ?
-
Joey Bloggs wrote: I can almost guarentee that they will not be able to hit that sort of performance level. Why? The .NET CLR is nothing like the Java JVM. Java bytecode is compiled whenever it is used. The .NET CLR precompiles the code and saves it on disk to use next time. There's no reason why it can't get extremely close to straight compiled code. And just in case you're wondering, no, I'm not a big fan of .NET for other reasons. I'm learning C# at the moment, but I don't envisage using it as my main language. I much prefer standard C++.
Ryan
"Punctuality is only a virtue for those who aren't smart enough to think of good excuses for being late" John Nichol "Point Of Impact"
Ryan Binns wrote: The .NET CLR precompiles the code and saves it on disk to use next time. MS haven't documented this one well... There's a tool called NGEN which you can run at install time, or on an MSIL binary, that will cache a JITted copy of the program in a system cache (located at %SystemRoot%\assembly\NativeImages1_v_runtime-version_). Many of the system class libraries are run through NGEN at installation time (for v1.1, this includes mscorlib.dll, System.dll, System.Design.dll, System.Drawing.dll, System.Drawing.Design.dll, System.Windows.Forms.dll and System.Xml.dll, plus some others for J# and VS.NET). However, your own code doesn't get cached - I believe that it has to be JITted for every process that uses that code, processes do not share the memory pages containing native code. One thing that does differ is that MS alleges that MSIL is closer to native code than Java bytecode (from now on, JBC). I think they're indicating that MSIL has a larger instruction set than JBC, which should lead to a closer mapping between MSIL and native code, hence reduced JIT time and potentially better performing generated code. At present, the VB.NET and C# compilers don't optimise the MSIL (e.g. constant folding, expression hoisting, tail recursion, dead code elimination) while the Managed C++ compiler (i.e. CL.EXE with the /clr switch) does. Personally I don't like reference languages, and I don't like non-deterministic destruction - I like to
deleteresources or have them go out of scope once I've finished with them. But I will admit it's harder than garbage collection - you have to be more disciplined. Having said that, not callingDispose(or using ausingblock in C#) can also cause you critical performance problems as finalization is costly. So you still have to be nearly as careful with .NET or other GC environments, IMO. -
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 Gandhijdunlap wrote: The .NET Framework for 64-bit platforms is free. Or, rather, it will be when it's released. I think the current plan is to release version 2.0 on 32- and 64-bit platforms simultaneously. There will be no version 1.x on 64-bit. I'm not sure if this applies only to IA64, or whether there will be an AMD64 version at the same time. The plan is apparently to include the framework in all future Windows releases (Server 2003 comes with Framework 1.1). As I understand it, Longhorn's shell will be dependent on the Framework.
-
Joey Bloggs wrote: For those of you who are convinced that .NET and CLR will outperform C++ with a P3/P4 optimizing compiler Hi, I'm wondering where you actually heard that statement. I doubt any MS employees would have actually claimed that. What they DO seem to say is that there is ALOT of room for improvement on what is already a pretty performant platform. http://www.vertigosoftware.com/Quake2.htm[^] What's the difference between a C++ programmer and God? God knows he's not a C++ programmer : anon
http://www.codeproject.com/managedcpp/Quake2.asp[^] :| cheers, Chris Maunder
-
Ryan Binns wrote: The .NET CLR precompiles the code and saves it on disk to use next time. MS haven't documented this one well... There's a tool called NGEN which you can run at install time, or on an MSIL binary, that will cache a JITted copy of the program in a system cache (located at %SystemRoot%\assembly\NativeImages1_v_runtime-version_). Many of the system class libraries are run through NGEN at installation time (for v1.1, this includes mscorlib.dll, System.dll, System.Design.dll, System.Drawing.dll, System.Drawing.Design.dll, System.Windows.Forms.dll and System.Xml.dll, plus some others for J# and VS.NET). However, your own code doesn't get cached - I believe that it has to be JITted for every process that uses that code, processes do not share the memory pages containing native code. One thing that does differ is that MS alleges that MSIL is closer to native code than Java bytecode (from now on, JBC). I think they're indicating that MSIL has a larger instruction set than JBC, which should lead to a closer mapping between MSIL and native code, hence reduced JIT time and potentially better performing generated code. At present, the VB.NET and C# compilers don't optimise the MSIL (e.g. constant folding, expression hoisting, tail recursion, dead code elimination) while the Managed C++ compiler (i.e. CL.EXE with the /clr switch) does. Personally I don't like reference languages, and I don't like non-deterministic destruction - I like to
deleteresources or have them go out of scope once I've finished with them. But I will admit it's harder than garbage collection - you have to be more disciplined. Having said that, not callingDispose(or using ausingblock in C#) can also cause you critical performance problems as finalization is costly. So you still have to be nearly as careful with .NET or other GC environments, IMO.Mike Dimmick wrote: However, your own code doesn't get cached - I believe that it has to be JITted for every process that uses that code, processes do not share the memory pages containing native code. You're quite correct - I partially misread the docs and partially confused it with install-time precompilation which you outlined :) Mike Dimmick wrote: Personally I don't like reference languages, and I don't like non-deterministic destruction - I like to delete resources or have them go out of scope once I've finished with them. But I will admit it's harder than garbage collection - you have to be more disciplined. Absolutely :) I'm the same. I prefer to know that I haven't made any mistakes, rather than letting some slow garbage collector fix them up.
Ryan
"Punctuality is only a virtue for those who aren't smart enough to think of good excuses for being late" John Nichol "Point Of Impact"
-
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
Yawn.... X| Anna :rose: Homepage | Tears and Laughter "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work. Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Visual C++ Add-In
-
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 have never heard that claim nor come across anyone who would suggest such a thing except in very specific circumstances. Any benchmark test can be written to favour a specific compiler and there were examples released even at PDC 2000 that showed some algorithms written in Managed C++ were fast than native C++. However, it's clear that in day to day use .NET is slower. But so what. .NET *does* reduce developer time and costs (for comparably trained developers). 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. And you're point is? Microsoft is a business. Sun is a business. Linux is a business. .NET has and is being ported to Open Source platforms so in the future you can choose to work in .NET while having access to the source. cheers, Chris Maunder
-
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. 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 You mean they are actually trying to make money? :omg: A software company trying to make a profit? They must be stopped.
-
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. 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 You mean they are actually trying to make money? :omg: A software company trying to make a profit? They must be stopped.
Microsoft is not just a software company. They are a global monopoly who should be meeting their corporate social responsibilities not to mention the public policies of our various democratically elected governments. Instead they seem to be able to treat the whole process as a game, manipulating legal systems with their vast resources and bribing their way out of censure by giving away software which to all intents and purposes costs them nothing. They are not the only multinational playing the game but they certainly seem to be the most successfull.
-
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
Senkwe Chanda wrote: What's the difference between a C++ programmer and God? God knows he's not a C++ programmer I do know C++! What are you talking about? :laugh:;)
The nice thing about C++ is that only your friends can handle your private parts.
-
Microsoft is not just a software company. They are a global monopoly who should be meeting their corporate social responsibilities not to mention the public policies of our various democratically elected governments. Instead they seem to be able to treat the whole process as a game, manipulating legal systems with their vast resources and bribing their way out of censure by giving away software which to all intents and purposes costs them nothing. They are not the only multinational playing the game but they certainly seem to be the most successfull.
Joey Bloggs wrote: Microsoft is not just a software company. Oh yea, I forgot, they are also a hardware company, cause they sell XBox. Joey Bloggs wrote: They are a global monopoly Monopoly 1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action 2 : exclusive possession or control 3 : a commodity controlled by one party Sorry, I just don't buy it. There are plenty of alternative operating systems out there. Linux, Mac, 32 flavors of Unix and others. Development-wise, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of other compilers, languages and IDEs. Joey Bloggs wrote: giving away software which to all intents and purposes costs them nothing. Would you prefer they sell software that costs them nothing? I would prefer other corporations behave more like Microsoft. Unlike Enron, Worldcom, etc they actually make money by selling a product. They have filled a niche that the world needed.
-
Joey Bloggs wrote: For those of you who are convinced that .NET and CLR will outperform C++ with a P3/P4 optimizing compiler I have never heard that claim nor come across anyone who would suggest such a thing except in very specific circumstances. Any benchmark test can be written to favour a specific compiler and there were examples released even at PDC 2000 that showed some algorithms written in Managed C++ were fast than native C++. However, it's clear that in day to day use .NET is slower. But so what. .NET *does* reduce developer time and costs (for comparably trained developers). 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. And you're point is? Microsoft is a business. Sun is a business. Linux is a business. .NET has and is being ported to Open Source platforms so in the future you can choose to work in .NET while having access to the source. cheers, Chris Maunder
I'm trying hard not to quibble, but: Chris Maunder wrote: Microsoft is a business. Sun is a business. Linux is a business. Linux is not a business. Red Hat is a business, SCO is business, Linux is typically a title for a broad range of things, of which none is a business. Small, subtle, semantic point, but an important one. Joel Lucsy
-
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...
Shog9 wrote: ...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." Bitch slap Billy. Could you please organise for him to visit me here in Mount Druitt. I sure as hell can't afford to fly over to Redmond for the occassion. Michael Martin Australia "I personally love it because I can get as down and dirty as I want on the backend, while also being able to dabble with fun scripting and presentation games on the front end." - Chris Maunder 15/07/2002
-
Shog9 wrote: ...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." Bitch slap Billy. Could you please organise for him to visit me here in Mount Druitt. I sure as hell can't afford to fly over to Redmond for the occassion. Michael Martin Australia "I personally love it because I can get as down and dirty as I want on the backend, while also being able to dabble with fun scripting and presentation games on the front end." - Chris Maunder 15/07/2002
-
I'm trying hard not to quibble, but: Chris Maunder wrote: Microsoft is a business. Sun is a business. Linux is a business. Linux is not a business. Red Hat is a business, SCO is business, Linux is typically a title for a broad range of things, of which none is a business. Small, subtle, semantic point, but an important one. Joel Lucsy
Quiblle away. You know what I was broadly referring to :) cheers, Chris Maunder
-
Joey Bloggs wrote: Microsoft is not just a software company. Oh yea, I forgot, they are also a hardware company, cause they sell XBox. Joey Bloggs wrote: They are a global monopoly Monopoly 1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action 2 : exclusive possession or control 3 : a commodity controlled by one party Sorry, I just don't buy it. There are plenty of alternative operating systems out there. Linux, Mac, 32 flavors of Unix and others. Development-wise, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of other compilers, languages and IDEs. Joey Bloggs wrote: giving away software which to all intents and purposes costs them nothing. Would you prefer they sell software that costs them nothing? I would prefer other corporations behave more like Microsoft. Unlike Enron, Worldcom, etc they actually make money by selling a product. They have filled a niche that the world needed.
wiseguy_2112 wrote: Monopoly 1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action 2 : exclusive possession or control 3 : a commodity controlled by one party Think you have scored an own goal there and made my point rather nicely ! wiseguy_2112 wrote: Joey Bloggs wrote: giving away software which to all intents and purposes costs them nothing. Would you prefer they sell software that costs them nothing? This was in reference to them meeting various legal fines etc by 'donating' software with a retail price of millions but the true cost to microsoft is 0.10 per CD or probably just over 500.00 total. wiseguy_2112 wrote: I would prefer other corporations behave more like Microsoft. Unlike Enron, Worldcom, etc they actually make money by selling a product. They have filled a niche that the world needed Unlike telecommunications bandwidth and electricity Microsoft's products are not easily exchangable. Otherwise Enron probably would have tried to gamble with complex derivaties coupled to the future price of .NET Server 2005. Beyond that we are into accountings standards, corporate governance and government regulated checks and balances. I think thats a topic for another day. Cheers