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

Groups > comp.programming > #1543

Re: quantifying bloat

Show all headers | View raw

Il 05.05.2012 12:50, Dmitry A. Kazakov ha scritto:
> As for the "tools" these are just of mathematical statistics and nothing
> else. It is applied mathematics, which per definition of has no fundamental
> merit of its own. Considering the mathematical statistics, if that to apply
> to the code analysis, I doubt it could be any useful here, because:
>
> 1. Properties of the code are not random. In the overwhelming majority of
> relevant cases it is all about the deterministic behavior of the program.
>
> 2. Human perception of the code as being bloated or not is not stochastic
> either.

You set the thing as an identity ;-)
in fact we just want to trace what/how is the "bloat" just in that
deterministic behavior.also, those mathe-tools result to be unuseful
when used in a biased way.

the deterministic behavior of a program
is a function of some well known variables, example: the market of
compilers; the habit of using this toolchain instead of that.

exactly in the same way for natural languages the
information (as an useful acknowledgment) is a function of some other
well known variables like gesture-recognition etc, things blah-blah
belonging to semiology. but variables "without" time-space; they are
there meaning something precisely, but concretely un-utterable as they
were practically random in their significance !

isnt it "random" the fact that most of people likes C's toolchains ?

the conkret: it is damaging for ARM the same application
that contains the same "things", and behaves the same way as its
counterpart on X86.
because ARM, being low-power etc. doesent like the same "bloat" running
on x86 platform, they say to be useful. but it is not obvious the fact
that ARM will force the users to reduce those "bloated things", as used
on x86.

and now comes the human perception into scene. whether or not
stochastic, it's an istinktive guideline; not to be neglected.
in fact C's toolchains have been adapted to ARM for the sake of a
presumed *perception* of people used to C's toolchains. this is in
order to preserve user-habits of x86 on ARM, they say.
consequently, when outputtin for ARM, the same compiler convert/hides
and inserts/cuts/adapts lot of behaviours/informations automagically,
they say. they.

i would like to assume the above 2 points as working hypothesis, not as
obvious accepted reasons/limits. information theory seems to me not
such a perfect branch. it may be extended, imo.

Cheers,

-- 
.:mrk[hopcode]
   .:x64lab:.
  group http://groups.google.com/group/x64lab
  site http://sites.google.com/site/x64lab

Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

quantifying bloat bob <bob@coolfone.comze.com> - 2012-04-27 08:56 -0700
  Re: quantifying bloat hopcode <hopcode@invalid.de> - 2012-04-27 18:16 +0200
    Re: quantifying bloat Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-04-29 16:22 +0200
  Re: quantifying bloat "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2012-04-29 10:03 +0100
    Re: quantifying bloat "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-04-29 11:36 +0200
      Re: quantifying bloat Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2012-04-29 15:09 -0700
        Re: quantifying bloat "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-04-30 10:09 +0200
      Re: quantifying bloat "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2012-05-01 08:53 +0100
        Re: quantifying bloat "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-05-01 10:52 +0200
          Re: quantifying bloat hopcode <hopcode@invalid.de> - 2012-05-02 04:02 +0200
          Re: quantifying bloat "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2012-05-05 10:03 +0100
            Re: quantifying bloat "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-05-05 12:50 +0200
              Re: quantifying bloat hopcode <hopcode@invalid.de> - 2012-05-05 16:23 +0200
                Re: quantifying bloat "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-05-05 17:43 +0200
      Re: quantifying bloat gremnebulin <peterdjones@yahoo.com> - 2012-05-03 09:27 -0700
        Re: quantifying bloat "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-05-03 18:50 +0200
          Re: quantifying bloat Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2012-05-04 13:52 +0000
            Re: quantifying bloat "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-05-04 16:05 +0200
              Re: quantifying bloat hopcode <hopcode@invalid.de> - 2012-05-04 20:44 +0200
                Re: quantifying bloat Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2012-05-04 20:32 +0000
                Re: quantifying bloat "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2012-05-05 10:16 +0100
    Re: quantifying bloat James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2012-05-02 02:44 -0700
      Re: quantifying bloat "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2012-05-05 10:11 +0100
        Re: quantifying bloat "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-05-05 13:22 +0200
          Re: quantifying bloat hopcode <hopcode@invalid.de> - 2012-05-05 16:27 +0200
  Re: quantifying bloat rossum <rossum48@coldmail.com> - 2012-04-29 11:01 +0100

csiph-web