Re: [suse-programming-e] Is SuSE 64 bit ?
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 17:33:55 +0100 From: John Lamb
Subject: Re: [suse-programming-e] Is SuSE 64 bit ? To: suse-programming-e@suse.com Stefan Hundhammer wrote:
OK, thanks, that's a very informative site.
But according to the charts there, there is hardly any difference in performance, right? Sometimes even C/C++ appears to be faster.
Or am I reading those charts wrong?
No, though there may be other examples where F is actually faster, depending on the usual things, how it's compiled, what number-crunching is done etc. There are still F libraries such as ATLAS that are reputedly better than the C equivalent.
OTOH, since C has the asm keyword, it's always technically
get C code to compile as fast as F. I've found that wring
crunching stuff in C/C++ carefully often gives assembly output that I couldn't reasonably improve, albeit the style of the C/C++ tends to resemble F a bit.
In the end, there's nothing in C/C++ that says it can't compile to run at least as fast as F, esp with the right optimisations (- march=pentium4 -O3 -mfpmath=sse -msse -msse2 -malign-double works for me!),
think that's not always the point. Otherwise I wouldn't use java and python. ;-)
-- JDL
-- To unsubscribe, email: suse-programming-e- unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands, email: suse-programming-e- help@suse.com Archives can be found at: http://lists.suse.com/archive/suse-
I almost agree with you JDL. C++ programmers tend to be 'function orientated' whereas FTN programmers tend to be 'in line' orientated. Perhaps it is often a matter of programming style which makes the most difference. But one must always keep in mind two things: these days many languages are initially, partially compiled down to the same pseudo-language for a latter step, and FOTRAN has been under development by very (and I mean very) experienced people for a very long time and scientific programmers still turn to FORTRAN. I started this question, but must apologise for not been very active: mainly because my email address has changed, I still have difficulty getting onto the internet (impossible with my SuSE Linux machine), I still cannot link an X Window program, and I am in the middle of moving house from England to Australia. (And must visit family before I depart.) But I have been reading, with interest, all of your comments. I promise to try a summary ASAP. Regards, Colin ---- Original message ---- possible to the number though I programming-e
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 14:30:22 GMT
Colin Carter
C++ programmers tend to be 'function orientated' whereas FTN programmers tend to be 'in line' orientated. Perhaps it is often a matter of programming style which makes the most difference. But one must always keep in mind two things: these days many languages are initially, partially compiled down to the same pseudo-language for a latter step, and FOTRAN has been under development by very (and I mean very) experienced people for a very long time and scientific programmers still turn to FORTRAN.
One reason that FORTRAN has lasted so long (as it is one of the earliest
high level languages) is that there is a tremendous body of scientific
programs and libraries written in FORTRAN, and the compiler people have
been able to very aggressively optimize the code. Another advantage is
that there are many built-in features of FORTRAN that tend to generate
inline code where C and C++ result in library calls.
(aside: I think that LISP is the oldest computer language because it was
invented before the computer).
--
Jerry Feldman
participants (2)
-
Colin Carter
-
Jerry Feldman