Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #25566
| Date | 2011-02-07 16:21 +0800 |
|---|---|
| From | Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
| Subject | Re: Java vs C++ |
| References | (8 earlier) <iincuv$ot9$1@news.belwue.de> <4d4f4a54$0$23753$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <iio2be$g2f$3@lust.ihug.co.nz> <iio4q9$eer$1@news.eternal-september.org> <L4-dnfBCMbOqONLQnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@posted.palinacquisition> |
| Message-ID | <6a6dndmK8PM_NtLQnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@posted.palinacquisition> (permalink) |
On 2/7/11 3:54 PM, Peter Duniho wrote: > [...] > A long time ago, I worked on a project that used a form of interpreted > byte code in which the linker did exactly that. In that situation, the > reason we were using the byte code in the first place was for > compression, to help the program fit in memory (it was a relatively > large program, running on Mac and Windows computers without virtual > memory). So the "quoting" feature was important enough to make it worth > doing. > > In fact, that feature did not rely on C++ templates at all. We were > coding in plain C, and it detected any code that was essentially > copy/paste or nearly so. I guess I should also mention that the interpreter itself supported the quoting feature, so it was a lot simpler to rewrite any code that needed to be shared: just remove the actual code and replace with the "quote" instruction referring to the quoted code. There also was no multi-threading for the code back in those days. It'd be a bit more complicated for a linker to accomplish a similar feature, but it's not like it's an intractable problem. I think turning the quote into a function call would solve most issues, if not everything, and of course if you quote an entire function, that's even easier. Pete
Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: Java vs C++ Silvio <silvio@moc.com> - 2011-02-05 18:04 +0100
Re: Java vs C++ Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2011-02-07 16:21 +0800
Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 12:28 +1300
Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-08 09:22 +1300
Re: Java vs C++ Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-07 17:25 -0500
Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-08 16:08 +1300
Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 12:24 +1300
Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 15:03 +1300
Re: Java vs C++ Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-06 21:18 -0500
Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 15:55 +1300
Re: Java vs C++ "javax.swing.JSnarker" <gharriman@boojum.mit.edu> - 2011-02-06 19:54 -0500
Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 20:50 -0500
Re: Java vs C++ Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2011-02-07 15:54 +0800
Re: Java vs C++ Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2011-02-07 01:04 +0100
Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 20:26 -0500
Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 19:09 +1300
Re: Java vs C++ Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-07 07:29 -0500
Re: Java vs C++ "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> - 2011-02-06 22:52 -0800
Re: Java vs C++ Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2011-02-06 16:35 +0100
Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 15:51 +1300
Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 15:01 +1300
Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-07 19:52 -0500
Re: Java vs C++ Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-06 13:09 -0500
Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 15:00 +1300
Re: Java vs C++ Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-06 21:20 -0500
Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 20:29 -0500
Re: Java vs C++ Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2011-02-07 00:57 +0100
Re: Java vs C++ Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-06 12:57 -0500
Re: Java vs C++ Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-06 21:12 -0500
Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 12:26 +1300
Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 15:27 -0500
Re: Java vs C++ Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2011-02-06 16:45 +0100
csiph-web