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

["Kevin Lawton" <kepla@btinternet.com>]

wildstar <wildstar128@hotmail.com> wrote:
| "Kevin Lawton" <kepla@btinternet.com> wrote in
| news:bcr0jg$ep0$5@sparta.btinternet.com:
|
|| Nope.
|| My point is that consumers (in the very widest sense) are paying for
|| immensely powerfull machines which only just manage to cope with the
|| application tasks put before them because of the proliferation of
|| inefficient software technology.
|| I am saying that it seems that many of the tasks which a typical 2
|| GHz PC is bought for could be adequately performed by a less
|| powerfull machine were the software more efficient. Alternatively,
|| more efficient software on current machines should show better speed
|| and functionality then is currently seen. I've nothing against
|| high-level languages - I've been using them for long enough. My
|| complaint is aimed at the recent trend towards languages and
|| techniques which are 'easier' and 'dumbed-down' leading to large
|| inefficient programs. Java is a typical example of this trend. As a
|| trade-off for being quick and easy (but not that quick or easy) to
|| write and portable across platforms, java gives away efficiency to
|| just about every other language I've used - except Basic, which was
|| not created to be used seriously.
|
| Excuse me, one has to first write/compile a JAVA compiler.
I know many Java programmers who have never written their own compiler. Most
people I know prefer to use one ready written from Sun.
| It still requires interpretation during execution.
True, sadly, which doesn't exactly help efficiency does it ?
| Did you forget about the byte- code interpretation.
Forget, how could I ?
| That is like converting tokens in token BASIC.
Similar, in as much as it is part of the interpretation process.
| I think C/C++ is very much sufficient in developing an RDBMS. Why ?
| All those higher-level languages are written in C/C++
Not ALL, but many. Goes to show the power, efficiency and flexibility of C.
This is what it was designed for.
| so the basic tool like the bubble-sort can be written in C/C++.
Yes, then you can either make it an extension of the language or part of an
object library which can be linked to.
| Basically, I don't care.
Exactly ! I think part of the problem is that people don't seem to actually
care very much anymore about program efficiency.
| I do not mind seeing JAVA apps available for C-One.
I don't mind seeing Java apps. As a novelty exercise in writing applications
which can be ported over many different architectures, they are interesting.
In terms of efficient, compact, fast, professional applications they leave
something to be desired.
If a petrol company came out with a fuel for my car which only gave half the
acceleration and top speed of normal petrol, but took up most of the petrol
tank with enough to get into town and back, I would not feel consoled by the
answer 'buy a Ferarri and extra fuel tanks'. This is just the same as some
awfull software house trying to sell me software so written and designed
that my computer slows to a crawl and the hard drive fills up with
bloatware, then suggesting that I 'buy a 2.4 GHz processor and extra hard
drives'. Just because we are discussing computer languages instead of car
fuel, the basic principles don't have to be completely different.
In the above example, the inefficient 'novelty' car fuel could be excused if
it were many times cheaper than normal petrol, and large, slow, inefficient
software might be excused if it were many times cheaper than fast, efficient
software. But this isn't the case, is it ?
Kevin.