Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #9228 > unrolled thread

Are we just running in place?

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Are we just running in place? RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2015-10-30 15:53 +0300
    Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-30 13:43 +0000
      Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-30 10:28 -0400
        Re: Are we just running in place? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-30 15:34 +0000
          Re: Are we just running in place?     wje@acm.org (Bill Evans) - 2015-10-30 09:05 -0700
            Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-30 13:25 -0400
              Re: Are we just running in place? Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-10-30 17:28 +0000
              Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-30 18:32 +0000
                Re: Are we just running in place? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-11-01 20:01 +0000
                  Re: Are we just running in place? Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2015-11-04 10:11 +0100
                    Re: Are we just running in place? scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2015-11-04 22:29 +0000
                      Re: Are we just running in place? Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 16:44 -0600
                      Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-04 23:04 -0500
                        Re: Are we just running in place? Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 22:34 -0600
                        Re: Are we just running in place? RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2015-11-05 10:30 +0300
                        Re: Are we just running in place? Stephen Chadfield <stephen@chadfield.com> - 2015-11-05 13:39 +0000
            Re: Are we just running in place? Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-10-30 17:30 +0000
              Re: Are we just running in place? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-31 08:05 +0000
          Re: Are we just running in place? Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2015-11-04 10:01 +0100
        Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-30 17:34 +0000
          Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-30 13:49 -0400
            Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-30 18:23 +0000
              Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-30 18:59 +0000
              Re: Are we just running in place? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-11-01 01:33 -0300
              Re: Are we just running in place? Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2015-11-04 10:19 +0100
                Re: Are we just running in place? Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-11-04 21:21 +0000
          Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-30 18:33 +0000
            Re: Are we just running in place? Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 12:59 -0500
              Re: Are we just running in place? scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2015-11-03 17:29 +0000
                Re: Are we just running in place? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-11-03 10:14 -0800
          Re: Are we just running in place? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-30 18:39 +0000
            Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-30 19:22 +0000
              Re: Are we just running in place? "Dirk T. Verbeek" <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> - 2015-10-30 20:27 +0100
                Re: Are we just running in place? bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) - 2015-10-30 20:08 +0000
                  Re: Are we just running in place? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-10-30 21:21 +0000
                    Re: Are we just running in place? bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) - 2015-10-31 04:15 +0000
                  Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-02 14:19 +0000
                    Re: Are we just running in place? bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) - 2015-11-02 16:15 +0000
                      Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-02 12:29 -0500
                      Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-02 19:13 +0000
                        Re: Are we just running in place? bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) - 2015-11-02 21:25 +0000
                          Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-03 14:03 +0000
              Re: Are we just running in place? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-30 21:11 +0000
          Re: Are we just running in place? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-11-01 01:23 -0300
        Re: Are we just running in place? RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2015-10-30 20:05 +0000
      Re: Are we just running in place? Johnny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2015-10-30 19:53 +0000
        Re: Are we just running in place? Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 12:09 -0500
      Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-11-01 09:42 +0000
        Re: Are we just running in place? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-01 13:33 +0000
          Re: Are we just running in place? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:45 +1100
            Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-02 11:06 +0100
      Re: Are we just running in place? Waldek Hebisch <hebisch@math.uni.wroc.pl> - 2015-11-03 22:06 +0000
        Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-03 23:43 +0100
          Re: Are we just running in place? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-04 13:52 +0000
        Re: Are we just running in place? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-03 23:46 +0000
          Re: Are we just running in place? Waldek Hebisch <hebisch@math.uni.wroc.pl> - 2015-11-04 04:35 +0000
            Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-04 10:24 +0100
              Re: Are we just running in place? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-11-04 09:55 +0000
                Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-04 12:42 +0100
            Re: Are we just running in place? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-04 14:57 +0000
              Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-04 11:29 -0500
              Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-04 16:43 +0000
              Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-04 17:55 +0100
                Re: Are we just running in place? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-04 18:04 +0000
                  Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-04 18:48 +0000
                    Re: Are we just running in place? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-04 13:05 -0600
                    Re: Are we just running in place? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-04 19:36 +0000
                  Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-04 21:15 +0100
                    Re: Are we just running in place? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-04 21:35 +0000
              Re: Are we just running in place? Kees Nuyt <k.nuyt@nospam.demon.nl> - 2015-11-04 21:07 +0100
          Re: Are we just running in place? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-11-04 10:36 +0000
        Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-11-03 23:52 +0000
          Re: Are we just running in place? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-04 02:56 +0000
            Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-11-04 11:05 +0000
          Re: Are we just running in place? Waldek Hebisch <hebisch@math.uni.wroc.pl> - 2015-11-04 03:12 +0000
            Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-04 10:02 +0100
              Re: Are we just running in place? Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2015-11-08 11:48 +0100
          Re: Are we just running in place? Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2015-11-04 10:36 +0100
          Re: Are we just running in place? "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-05 09:01 +1100
            Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-11-05 00:09 +0000
        Re: Are we just running in place? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-04 11:03 -0500
          Re: Are we just running in place? Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-11-04 21:25 +0000
          Re: Are we just running in place? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-11-05 08:01 +0000
    Re: Are we just running in place? "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-10-31 15:09 +1100
    Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-31 11:11 +0000
      Re: Are we just running in place? RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2015-10-31 14:57 +0300
      Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-31 10:19 -0400
        Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-31 16:28 +0000
      Re: Are we just running in place?     wje@acm.org (Bill Evans) - 2015-10-31 04:14 -0700

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#9381

BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

> On 04/11/2015 04:35, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
>> In alt.folklore.computers BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>>> I don't understand why increasing capacity of memory or storage, or
>>> running at faster clock speed, by itself increases complexity.
>
>> If you accept fact that your new high-powered maching will
>> be only slightly faster then 40 years old one providing the
>> the same features as the old one, then there is no need
>> for more complexity.
>
> When you speed up a processor clock by 1000 times, why shouldn't the
> same program run faster?
>
> Modern software is more sophisticated, but it's mostly the extra
> memory and storage that makes it possible. Does it really need a 1000x
> faster machine just to run at the same speed as the old one?
>
> (In 1981 I wrote a little assembler for Z80, running on a 2.5MHz Z80
> (where each 8-bit instruction took between 4 and 24 clock ticks). It
> processed source code at 1700 lines per second.
>
> I recently tested NASM, running on a 3GHz 64-bit x86 processor (with
> multiple 64-bit operations per clock), and it managed 23000 lines per
> second, only 13 times as fast!
>
> There is some very fast software around, but equally a lot of it is
> inexplicably slow.)
>
>> caches something as simple as matrix multiplication sudenly
>> needs smart algorithm:
>
> Smart algorithms don't necessarily mean huge bloated code. If
> something needs a million lines of code, then it's not an algorithm!
> (1M lines is about 15000 pages; even the proof of Fermat's Last
> Theorem was only about 100.)
>
> (I use my own language for programs for which other people use C. And
> I run my own compiler for that. That compiler is about 0.3MB.
>
> It does pretty much the same job as, for example gcc, for which a
> typical installation might be 300MB. And even that is small compared
> with Visual C, for which you're looking at a 5000-11000 MB download.
>
> See, it is still possible to keep things small and manageable. But
> programs don't need to be as tiny as mine, they just don't really need
> to be 1000 to 10000 times bigger.)
>
>  you can use just three simple loops
>> or library lile ATLAS.  Only problem is that simple method
>> is something like 500 time slower for big matrices.
>
> The sort of complexity I'm concerned with is not really about such
> low-level algorithms. It's about systems getting too big enough that
> no one really knows what is going on.
>
> People build on top of other systems which are built on top of others,
> and eventually you've got a horrible bloated mess. And a slow one!
>
> (I know I will be castigated for using Windows in this apparently
> Unix-dominated group, but here goes. Until recently, every morning on
> my PC, a program called SVCHOST would take over my machine. It
> occupied one core of two, but still, everything else practically
> ground a halt.
>
> It carried on for some half an hour. If stopped, it would start again,
> or there would be problems with connectivity later. It wasn't a virus
> either!
>
> It turned out to be something to do with Windows updates, but it never
> reported any actual updates, it never actually /did/ anything. It just
> made the machine - my machine that I want to work on - impossible to
> use. Other people had the same problems.
>
> It was solved by disabling something to do with the updates. The
> question remains, why would MS allow something like this to run that
> would effectively cripple customers' machines? What exactly was it
> doing that required so much CPU power? Does anyone know for sure? I
> doubt it!)

svchost is just a container.
This page explains what it does and how to find out what's really
going on:

http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/what-is-svchostexe-and-why-is-it-running/

Pretty poor CPU use reporting from Windows, IMO.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9382

BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>On 04/11/2015 04:35, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
>> In alt.folklore.computers BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>>> I don't understand why increasing capacity of memory or storage, or
>>> running at faster clock speed, by itself increases complexity.
>
>> If you accept fact that your new high-powered maching will
>> be only slightly faster then 40 years old one providing the
>> the same features as the old one, then there is no need
>> for more complexity.
>
>When you speed up a processor clock by 1000 times, why shouldn't the 
>same program run faster?

Because it's not processor bound.  Most applications aren't.  They're
I/O bound or Z bounded.

The BPL compiler on my emulated Burroughs system is faster[*] than the
actual compiler ever was on even the two-million-dollar plus physical
hardware (V530).

[*] Close to an order of magnitude better

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9383

In article <V1p_x.113230$8s6.73562@fx46.am4>, BartC  <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>On 04/11/2015 04:35, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
>> In alt.folklore.computers BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>>> I don't understand why increasing capacity of memory or storage, or
>>> running at faster clock speed, by itself increases complexity.
>
>> If you accept fact that your new high-powered maching will
>> be only slightly faster then 40 years old one providing the
>> the same features as the old one, then there is no need
>> for more complexity.
>
>When you speed up a processor clock by 1000 times, why shouldn't the 
>same program run faster?
>
>Modern software is more sophisticated, but it's mostly the extra memory 
>and storage that makes it possible. Does it really need a 1000x faster 
>machine just to run at the same speed as the old one?
>
>(In 1981 I wrote a little assembler for Z80, running on a 2.5MHz Z80 
>(where each 8-bit instruction took between 4 and 24 clock ticks). It 
>processed source code at 1700 lines per second.
>
>I recently tested NASM, running on a 3GHz 64-bit x86 processor (with 
>multiple 64-bit operations per clock), and it managed 23000 lines per 
>second, only 13 times as fast!
>
>There is some very fast software around, but equally a lot of it is 
>inexplicably slow.)
>
>> caches something as simple as matrix multiplication sudenly
>> needs smart algorithm:
>
>Smart algorithms don't necessarily mean huge bloated code. If something 
>needs a million lines of code, then it's not an algorithm! (1M lines is 
>about 15000 pages; even the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem was only 
>about 100.)
>
>(I use my own language for programs for which other people use C. And I 
>run my own compiler for that. That compiler is about 0.3MB.
>
>It does pretty much the same job as, for example gcc, for which a 
>typical installation might be 300MB. And even that is small compared 
>with Visual C, for which you're looking at a 5000-11000 MB download.

gcc binaries for arm7 takes 6811 kilobytes to download and 22700 kilobytes
in the file system. A far cry from 300 meg.

Now, the LIBRARIES for everyone and their dog might take more. Much
more.

>See, it is still possible to keep things small and manageable. But 
>programs don't need to be as tiny as mine, they just don't really need 
>to be 1000 to 10000 times bigger.)
>
>  you can use just three simple loops
>> or library lile ATLAS.  Only problem is that simple method
>> is something like 500 time slower for big matrices.
>
>The sort of complexity I'm concerned with is not really about such 
>low-level algorithms. It's about systems getting too big enough that no 
>one really knows what is going on.
>
>People build on top of other systems which are built on top of others, 
>and eventually you've got a horrible bloated mess. And a slow one!
>
>(I know I will be castigated for using Windows in this apparently 
>Unix-dominated group, but here goes. Until recently, every morning on my 
>PC, a program called SVCHOST would take over my machine. It occupied one 
>core of two, but still, everything else practically ground a halt.
>
>It carried on for some half an hour. If stopped, it would start again, 
>or there would be problems with connectivity later. It wasn't a virus 
>either!
>
>It turned out to be something to do with Windows updates, but it never 
>reported any actual updates, it never actually /did/ anything. It just 
>made the machine - my machine that I want to work on - impossible to 
>use. Other people had the same problems.
>
>It was solved by disabling something to do with the updates. The 
>question remains, why would MS allow something like this to run that 
>would effectively cripple customers' machines? What exactly was it doing 
>that required so much CPU power? Does anyone know for sure? I doubt it!)

Technology indestinguishable from magic. It does not have to be
advanced, it just has to be hidden.

>>> Unicode means using 2 or 4 bytes per character instead of 1, that's all.
>>> And storage schemes such as UTF8 mean that text files needn't take up
>>> that much more space. As for those that tables indexed by character: you
>>> simply wouldn't have a table with 64K or 1M entries; you'd use another
>>> approach (and probably for most purposes, special characters will be
>>> part of the ASCII subset).
>>
>> Exactly, you need another approach, like hash tables with entries
>> only for relevant characters, or lists or ranges.
>>
>>> Supporting Unicode with a big selection of fonts means a lot more data,
>>> but not necessarily that much more complexity (not of the order of 100
>>> or 1000 anyway). You would also expect such software to be optimised for
>>> the default language.
>>
>> In ASCII era you would have a table with charater properties
>> which can take 128 bytes (for 8 binary properties).  Together
>> with accessor functions less than 1kb.  Corresponding
>> library for Unicode when I looked at it were 2.7 MB.


>That's just data. You flash an image onto the screen; that's 1MB or 2MB; 
>it's nothing, because the capacity is there.

With a 1920 x 1280 32-bit screen that is around 10 MB. And that is
what I would consider a usable desktop.

>What's exasperating (this is again Windows), is you right-click 
>something (a file, icon, whatever), and sometimes you can count slowly 
>to ten before it even shows a pop-up list of options. You're not asking 
>for some complicated calculations, you just want it to show 'Properties' 
>so that you can click on it!
>
>So what was it spending ten seconds doing? The problem is there's 
>apparently no-one whose job it is to find out. They only know how to add 
>complexity: buy more RAM, a faster machine, download add-on software to 
>'clean' your system, or download yet another upgrade!

I see why I chose to not use that platform around a decade and a half
ago.

-- mrr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9384

On 04/11/2015 16:55, Morten Reistad wrote:
> In article <V1p_x.113230$8s6.73562@fx46.am4>, BartC  <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

>> (I use my own language for programs for which other people use C. And I
>> run my own compiler for that. That compiler is about 0.3MB.
>>
>> It does pretty much the same job as, for example gcc, for which a
>> typical installation might be 300MB. And even that is small compared
>> with Visual C, for which you're looking at a 5000-11000 MB download.
>
> gcc binaries for arm7 takes 6811 kilobytes to download and 22700 kilobytes
> in the file system. A far cry from 300 meg.
>
> Now, the LIBRARIES for everyone and their dog might take more. Much
> more.

For Windows, you need the full download if you want to be able to 
compile anything (the core 65MB installation can't). Then, if you're 
enough of a gcc expert you might be be able to pick the essential files 
out of the 3500 that are present.

With Clang, out of the 400MB installation, the compiler itself is 50MB, 
but that can't compile anything by itself either (it piggy backs onto gcc).

MS Visual C also has a core compiler far smaller than the Visual Studio 
environment, but try finding a download smaller than 5 or 6GB! (I did 
manage special Visual C++ 2008 download intended to compile Python, 
that's a few hundred MB on disk.)

Perhaps you have a mind to tinker with the source code of gcc; that's a 
90MB download, 100s MB on disk, some 40,000 files IIRC. Still, that's 
not as bad as the 1.5 million *files* that comprise Visual Studio!

(My compiler is 20 source files (not including the IDE; that's another 5!).)

>> So what was it spending ten seconds doing? The problem is there's
>> apparently no-one whose job it is to find out. They only know how to add
>> complexity: buy more RAM, a faster machine, download add-on software to
>> 'clean' your system, or download yet another upgrade!
>
> I see why I chose to not use that platform around a decade and a half
> ago.

(A decade and a half ago, I think I'd just managed to find a Linux 
system that could recognise a USB mouse! But not a graphics display or 
modem yet.)

-- 
Bartc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9386

BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>On 04/11/2015 16:55, Morten Reistad wrote:

>
>Perhaps you have a mind to tinker with the source code of gcc; that's a 
>90MB download, 100s MB on disk, some 40,000 files IIRC. Still, that's 
>not as bad as the 1.5 million *files* that comprise Visual Studio!
>
>(My compiler is 20 source files (not including the IDE; that's another 5!).)
>

I suppose your compiler supports ADA, Java, Go, C, C++, Objective C and Fortran
and generates code for 50 instruction set architectures, including the PDP-11 and VAX?

Does your compiler support C11 and C++14?

If not, then you can't compare it with GCC.

And the number of source files is not an interesting statistic.   SLOC is.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9388

"Scott Lurndal" wrote:

> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>On 04/11/2015 16:55, Morten Reistad wrote:
>
>>
>>Perhaps you have a mind to tinker with the source code of gcc; that's a
>>90MB download, 100s MB on disk, some 40,000 files IIRC. Still, that's
>>not as bad as the 1.5 million *files* that comprise Visual Studio!
>>
>>(My compiler is 20 source files (not including the IDE; that's another 
>>5!).)
>>
>
> I suppose your compiler supports ADA, Java, Go, C, C++, Objective C and 
> Fortran
> and generates code for 50 instruction set architectures, including the 
> PDP-11 and VAX?
>
> Does your compiler support C11 and C++14?
>
> If not, then you can't compare it with GCC.
>
> And the number of source files is not an interesting statistic.   SLOC is.

Nevertheless, anything with 1.5 million files will get my attention.

I set out to install VC once, several years ago but it failed so I aborted 
it.  I just looked to see what residue was left behind and there's nothing I 
can't live with.  One of the directories is "Depends" which happen to be the 
name of a popular adult diaper, I thought that was interesting. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9389

On 04/11/2015 18:48, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> On 04/11/2015 16:55, Morten Reistad wrote:
>
>>
>> Perhaps you have a mind to tinker with the source code of gcc; that's a
>> 90MB download, 100s MB on disk, some 40,000 files IIRC. Still, that's
>> not as bad as the 1.5 million *files* that comprise Visual Studio!
>>
>> (My compiler is 20 source files (not including the IDE; that's another 5!).)
>>
>
> I suppose your compiler supports ADA, Java, Go, C, C++, Objective C and Fortran

It sounds like you're making my point better than I am!

Maybe this is one of the reasons why this software is so complex: if I 
wanted a customised *C* compiler for *one* target for my own use, and 
wanted to start with gcc sources, I'd have to find my way around 40,000 
files *because* the thing supports half a dozen other languages and 
dozens of targets I have no interest in.

(And which can take from 15 to 75 minutes to build, if you can even 
manage it on Windows because the build system requires half of Unix to 
be imported before it will work.)

 > and generates code for 50 instruction set architectures, including 
the PDP-11 and VAX?

No, I only support two targets. For example, x64 requires 7Kloc across 
four files. At that rate, supporting 50 targets would need 50Kloc over 
200 files; that still a long way from 40,000.

> Does your compiler support C11 and C++14?

This is one approach I use to keep complexity at bay: I avoid using C 
(and would never use C++). Then I keep my language simple, streamlined 
and quick to compile.

> If not, then you can't compare it with GCC.

Yes I can: because for me, they're doing the same job; the languages (C 
and mine) are used for similar purposes. And given the choice, I would 
use my software because it's fast and informal and I have to fight it a 
lot less. The language is much nicer too.

Anyway this isn't about compilers; they were just an comparison of 
software on a small scale versus medium scale (eg. gcc) versus large 
scale (eg. anything MS produces).

 > I suppose your compiler supports ADA, Java, Go,...

(gcc supports Go? I find that hard to believe, as I thought one of the 
aims of Go was to get away from C and the complicated compilers with 
decades of baggage that go with it.)

-- 
Bartc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9391

In article <hNr_x.243476$TF5.64285@fx37.am4>, BartC  <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>On 04/11/2015 16:55, Morten Reistad wrote:
>> In article <V1p_x.113230$8s6.73562@fx46.am4>, BartC  <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>>> (I use my own language for programs for which other people use C. And I
>>> run my own compiler for that. That compiler is about 0.3MB.
>>>
>>> It does pretty much the same job as, for example gcc, for which a
>>> typical installation might be 300MB. And even that is small compared
>>> with Visual C, for which you're looking at a 5000-11000 MB download.
>>
>> gcc binaries for arm7 takes 6811 kilobytes to download and 22700 kilobytes
>> in the file system. A far cry from 300 meg.
>>
>> Now, the LIBRARIES for everyone and their dog might take more. Much
>> more.
>
>For Windows, you need the full download if you want to be able to 
>compile anything (the core 65MB installation can't). Then, if you're 
>enough of a gcc expert you might be be able to pick the essential files 
>out of the 3500 that are present.

ah, windows. Yep, then gcc would need all the unix emulation libs
that come native with linux.
>
>With Clang, out of the 400MB installation, the compiler itself is 50MB, 
>but that can't compile anything by itself either (it piggy backs onto gcc).
>
>MS Visual C also has a core compiler far smaller than the Visual Studio 
>environment, but try finding a download smaller than 5 or 6GB! (I did 
>manage special Visual C++ 2008 download intended to compile Python, 
>that's a few hundred MB on disk.)
>
>Perhaps you have a mind to tinker with the source code of gcc; that's a 
>90MB download, 100s MB on disk, some 40,000 files IIRC. Still, that's 
>not as bad as the 1.5 million *files* that comprise Visual Studio!
>
>(My compiler is 20 source files (not including the IDE; that's another 5!).)
>
>>> So what was it spending ten seconds doing? The problem is there's
>>> apparently no-one whose job it is to find out. They only know how to add
>>> complexity: buy more RAM, a faster machine, download add-on software to
>>> 'clean' your system, or download yet another upgrade!
>>
>> I see why I chose to not use that platform around a decade and a half
>> ago.
>
>(A decade and a half ago, I think I'd just managed to find a Linux 
>system that could recognise a USB mouse! But not a graphics display or 
>modem yet.)

I ran Linux 0,98c; the first one where you didn't have to build the
/ from minix; in mid fall of 1994. I had a graphics screen, ethernet with
full tcp/ip, even a browser, and four serial ports with modems on
two of them. Yes, I had to be a little careful with the hardware I chose.

The first USB mouse I plugged into Linux had a little window come up
asking something like "I see you plugged in a new mouse. Do you want
to make this your primary pointing device?" where windows asked for
a driver disk(ette).

I am not trying to make this a linux-windows flamefest, but you need to
accept that Linux and the BSDs have been real alternatives to Windows for
more than a decade now. Not one alternative, TWO (or more) alternatives.

Even QNX has graphical desktop that is as old as w95. 

And it remains compatible with source programs from early X11, a decade
older than W95.

You may have your reasons to stick with windows, but aversion of bloat
is not one of them.

-- mrr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9394

On 04/11/2015 20:15, Morten Reistad wrote:
> In article <hNr_x.243476$TF5.64285@fx37.am4>, BartC  <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

>> (A decade and a half ago, I think I'd just managed to find a Linux
>> system that could recognise a USB mouse! But not a graphics display or
>> modem yet.)

(I still haven't managed to find something that works fully. The closest 
has been Ubuntu running within VirtualBox, but that's only in a 1024 x 
768 window and in 32 bits only.)

> You may have your reasons to stick with windows, but aversion of bloat
> is not one of them.

Windows doesn't stop me doing things my way. Linux would impose its way 
of working on me (its weird file system for example), and has 
considerably more ancient baggage.

I try to stay away from the bloat.

Dealing with graphics directly under Windows is a nuisance, but I don't 
believe X11 is that much simpler.

-- 
Bartc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9390

On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 14:57:55 +0000, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

> (I know I will be castigated for using Windows in this apparently 
> Unix-dominated group, but here goes. Until recently, every morning on my 
> PC, a program called SVCHOST would take over my machine. It occupied one 
> core of two, but still, everything else practically ground a halt.
>
> It carried on for some half an hour. If stopped, it would start again, 
> or there would be problems with connectivity later. It wasn't a virus 
> either!
>
> It turned out to be something to do with Windows updates, but it never 
> reported any actual updates, it never actually /did/ anything. It just 
> made the machine - my machine that I want to work on - impossible to 
> use. Other people had the same problems.
>
> It was solved by disabling something to do with the updates. The 
> question remains, why would MS allow something like this to run that 
> would effectively cripple customers' machines? What exactly was it doing 
> that required so much CPU power? Does anyone know for sure? I doubt it!)

Yeah, must have been this bug:

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3102810

Microsoft has been tampering with Windows Update for more than
half a year now, mainly to get all Win7/8 users to Win 10.
Win7, even if not 'upgraded' to Win10 already contains a lot of
Win10 code.

-- 
Kees Nuyt

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9370

BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> Unicode means using 2 or 4 bytes per character instead of 1, that's
> all. And storage schemes such as UTF8 mean that text files needn't
> take up that much more space.

Encoding schemes are about the simplest bit, although still complex
enough that people get the implementations wrong from time to time.

A subset of the questions that get a lot more complicated include:
 - are these two bits of text the same?
 - how should these two words be ordered?
 - where are the word, line and sentence boundaries in this text?

> As for those that tables indexed by character: you simply wouldn't
> have a table with 64K or 1M entries; you'd use another approach (and
> probably for most purposes, special characters will be part of the
> ASCII subset).

It’s true that it’s common to use compression schemes, and to use
calculations instead of tables for certain areas.  More complexity...

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9356

"Waldek Hebisch" <hebisch@math.uni.wroc.pl> wrote in message 
news:n1bb5v$4u$1@z-news.wcss.wroc.pl...
> Would  you like to
> run sysgen every time before you insert a USB gadget?

If it meant that the computer leapt into life as soon as it was
powered on and had no boot dance, yes please!

How often do youactually add a new device? On this XP PC I'm using
at the moment, the configuration hasn't changed for over 5 years.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9358

On 03/11/2015 23:52, gareth wrote:
> "Waldek Hebisch" <hebisch@math.uni.wroc.pl> wrote in message
> news:n1bb5v$4u$1@z-news.wcss.wroc.pl...
>> Would  you like to
>> run sysgen every time before you insert a USB gadget?
>
> If it meant that the computer leapt into life as soon as it was
> powered on and had no boot dance, yes please!
>
> How often do youactually add a new device? On this XP PC I'm using
> at the moment, the configuration hasn't changed for over 5 years.
>
>
>
>
Do you keep you printer switched on?
Or only turn it on when you need it?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9373

"Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message 
news:7qydnUqyjsMP7qTLnZ2dnUU78T2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Do you keep you printer switched on?

No.

> Or only turn it on when you need it?

Yes. It's on the parallel port.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9359

In alt.folklore.computers gareth <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
> "Waldek Hebisch" <hebisch@math.uni.wroc.pl> wrote in message 
> news:n1bb5v$4u$1@z-news.wcss.wroc.pl...
> > Would  you like to
> > run sysgen every time before you insert a USB gadget?
> 
> If it meant that the computer leapt into life as soon as it was
> powered on and had no boot dance, yes please!
> 
> How often do youactually add a new device? On this XP PC I'm using
> at the moment, the configuration hasn't changed for over 5 years.
> 

I have 10 USB slots and about 50 gadgets needing 15-20 different
drivers.  I get new gadget every few months.  I have a fixed set
of active drivers and I had to add to it about 1.5 years ago.
But I can keep stable software configuration only due to
autodetection: I can plug in any gadget into any slot and
it will work.  If I had to assign specific types of gadgets
to slots, the I will run out of slots.  OK, actually I have
several USB hubs, so I could create configuration with
enough slots to cover all types.  But usually I need no
hub and sometimes I want more then one gadget of the same
type, so even with hubs there is risk of running up of
slots of right type.

Concerning boot time: my machine needs someting like 20-30
seconds to get to Linux bootloader and then 5s to boot
Linux (I boot to command line, booting to X would add
another 3-5s).  So main offender is Bios, it takes a
lot of time to detect devices.  I find the 5s Linux
boot time to be quite acceptable, in particular given
that Linux has to recheck devices and load various
administrative data from disk (hard drive, no SSD).

Major contributor to boot time is probing for devices:
devices may be slow to respond so system has to wait
long enough.  You could assume that there is fixed
set of present devices, but than you risk crashes
if device failed or is not present.  Recently
one of disk in my machine failed.  Since this was
a non-system disk I was able to boot to single-user
mode and comment out corresponding entries in /etc/fstab.
Then system was able to operate correctly.  After
I got replacement disk I just connected it in place
of failed one and the system recognized it.  Then
a little recovery procedure (disk was part of mirrored
pair) and the system was working as before.  Usability
advocates would probably argue for more automation
(I did all needed administrative stuff on the command
line), but compared to old days it was almost
painless (instead of being a major disaster).

-- 
                              Waldek Hebisch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9365

In article <n1bt2d$9ke$1@z-news.wcss.wroc.pl>,
Waldek Hebisch  <hebisch@math.uni.wroc.pl> wrote:
>In alt.folklore.computers gareth <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
>> "Waldek Hebisch" <hebisch@math.uni.wroc.pl> wrote in message 
>> news:n1bb5v$4u$1@z-news.wcss.wroc.pl...
>> > Would  you like to
>> > run sysgen every time before you insert a USB gadget?
>> 
>> If it meant that the computer leapt into life as soon as it was
>> powered on and had no boot dance, yes please!
>> 
>> How often do youactually add a new device? On this XP PC I'm using
>> at the moment, the configuration hasn't changed for over 5 years.

When we look at our current machines we easily find uptimes in
months, sometimes in years. This was definatly not the case in
1980, or earlier.

I once sent an SPAR (SPR, in DECese) to Prime about the uptime
counter wrapping every 75 point something days. (31 bits, 330 ticks
per second). It was framed in the reception area; "this is what our
customers complain about, too much uptime".

Having such stable computers was a minor miracle back then. Now
we take it for granted. And the laptop batteries, UPSes and SSDs 
brings it even further.

-- mrr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9418

Morten Reistad @ 2015-11-04 10:02 CET:

> I once sent an SPAR (SPR, in DECese) to Prime about the uptime
> counter wrapping every 75 point something days. (31 bits, 330 ticks
> per second). It was framed in the reception area; "this is what our
> customers complain about, too much uptime".
>
> Having such stable computers was a minor miracle back then. Now
> we take it for granted. And the laptop batteries, UPSes and SSDs 
> brings it even further.

But only if you are *not* running windows. It still needs to reboot
about once a week. This is at work. At home I have a windows free zone :-)

'Andreas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9366

On 2015-11-03, gareth <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
> "Waldek Hebisch" <hebisch@math.uni.wroc.pl> wrote in message 
> news:n1bb5v$4u$1@z-news.wcss.wroc.pl...
>> Would  you like to
>> run sysgen every time before you insert a USB gadget?
>
> If it meant that the computer leapt into life as soon as it was
> powered on and had no boot dance, yes please!

LOL- It took about 3 hours to do a sysgen on our PDP 11/34.  Having said
that, I used to run it overnight, so not really a problem, and today I
would put more effort into automating it than I did back then.

:-)

-- 
The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing
that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly
go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or
repair.                                                       -- HHGTTG

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9396

"gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote in message 
news:n1bh8m$bif$1@dont-email.me...
> "Waldek Hebisch" <hebisch@math.uni.wroc.pl> wrote in message 
> news:n1bb5v$4u$1@z-news.wcss.wroc.pl...
>> Would  you like to
>> run sysgen every time before you insert a USB gadget?
>
> If it meant that the computer leapt into life as soon as it was
> powered on and had no boot dance, yes please!

You're free to go back to one of the dinosaurs that do it that way any time 
you like.

> How often do youactually add a new device? On this XP PC I'm using
> at the moment, the configuration hasn't changed for over 5 years.

That's not true of plugging in a different USB stick. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9400

"John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> wrote in message 
news:d9vdhfFk870U1@mid.individual.net...
> "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:n1bh8m$bif$1@dont-email.me...
>
>> How often do youactually add a new device? On this XP PC I'm using
>> at the moment, the configuration hasn't changed for over 5 years.
>
> That's not true of plugging in a different USB stick.

1.44 MByte floppies here, old chap.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web