Re: Low-level vs. High-level programming (was My First Computer)

[wildstar <wildstar128@hotmail.com>]

"Kurt Koller" <kk@coinop.org> wrote in
e0bfda8d9666db1c42154f4079692f07@free.teranews.com:">news:e0bfda8d9666db1c42154f4079692f07@free.teranews.com: 


> Prove it.  You can't even evolve into someone who can work with a
> female manager, it sounds like.  It's not 1980 anymore.  Computers
> have changed, social constructs have evolved, and it sounds like you
> haven't. 

When has high-level program actually outperform a well written low-level
routine. Never has and never can when both system hardware level is the
same. For one, Java like its predecessor grand-daddy token BASIC. Which
JAVA calls byte-code is hardly more then tokens in BASIC. So you save
files as mere tokens and then interpret tokens. There is still an
interpretation.   Until you can compile to CPU level binary, it is still
slower. 

Now, doesn't that sound like wisdom of ancient programming. We use to
write programs that use to take a main frame which was equivelent to a
486 back in 1975 and rewrote the same program to run on a 1 MHz system
that had 1 KByte of RAM. It actually ran rather fast and nearly just as
fast in actual flow of operation as a machine that was 30x faster. So
the wisdom is, cut the bull-shit and keep it simple. Know your task and
do it. Quite f*cking around with unnecassary bullsh*t. In less then 16
MB of RAM use, I can have an OS that can reconfigure itself and run on
various kinds of CPUs and support reconfigurable hardware. 

I don't need 128 MBytes for something that can be done in 1 MBytes.