> Tony Smith wrote:
> > I originally wrote 'almost no-one', but changed it to see who'd bite.
> 
> I can only respond to what you wrote, not what you considered writing.
> 
> > 'Blatantly' is a bit much,
> 
> No, you made a absolute statement which a single counter example can
> disprove.  There are many counter examples of which I listed a couple.  If
> you'd said something like "most programs don't need a compiled language
> because speed is not the issue" I wouldn't have argued and even agreed,
but
> that's very different from what you actually said.


Surely you've managed you spot the trolls these days.


> > It's also been true for a while that it's cheaper to buy more CPU
> > power then spend days fiddling with something to make it faster.
> > That offends people too, but a new PC divided by your hourly rate is
> > a small number.  Which is better?
> 
> Again you're making a absolute claim, which of course is false.  Have you
> really never run into programs that took longer to run than you wished,
even
> if you had the latest computer?  Even if you haven't, are you really
saying
> you've never heard of any or can't imagine any?  If so, then there's a big
> world of computing you've managed to miss somehow.


Hardware is cheap, software isn't.  A PC is a few of hours of your hourly
rate.  How much auto-router code does that buy?


> The Eagle autorouter is a good example.  Some runs I've done have taken a
> couple of hours, some overnight.  Let's say for sake of argument I have a
> real problem that takes my current PC 1 hour to run.  Of course I'd like
it
> to be instant, but let's say 10 seconds would put it into the good enough
> range so that I wouldn't have to alter my workflow around the program.
> That's a factor of 360.  My PC is a few years old.  Maybe I could get 4x
out
> of a current mainstream model.  Let's be generous and say 8x.  That brings
> the one hour down to 7.5 minutes.  That's still a "long" time in my
context
> and I'd definitely want it to be faster.
>
> Thru the history of computing there have always been problems that taxed 
> the computers of the time where people had to wait inconveniently long for

> the computer to finish or compromises were made to limit the problem.  As 


Y'know, If I'd written that last bit, you'd have probably replied "Duh, go
buy a faster PC.  Why wait until some C guy finally knocks out a few more
bugs and make the autorouter run 5% faster.  A new PC will halve your run
time right now.".  There's a limit to the gains you can get with code, but
you can buy cheap CPU cycles right now.  And even more next year.

So you're happy to wait until the next Eagle release, fork over your licence
upgrade fee, and get something the may run a little bit faster?  I'll take
the PC.  No wait, your saying buy a new PC.  Hmm, you appear to be arguing
in full agreement with me.  I think.  Or are you waiting for the C
programmer to save the day with v4.56b?


> > C is rarely needed these days.
> 
> That's better, although I think you meant to say the extra performance of
a
> compiled language is rarely needed these days.  I agree with that, but
note
> that this doesn't make a compile language a bad idea, only that it makes


No, I meant C.  C & a HHL language can both compile to something that's
pretty much indistinguishable.  Microsoft showed that with QuickC &
QuickBasic years ago.  Why write in a language that creates more coding
errors?  Which is, of course, what you're complaining about.  Ya gotta love
these threads.

Tony


-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist