|
Members in Shoutbox
None.
Shoutbox Search
Shoutbox Commands
/w [name] > Whisper
/r > Reply to last whisper /me > Marks as action Shoutbox Information
Moderators may delete any and all shouts at will.
|
Global Shoutbox
Please log in to shout.
[2016-12-05. : 3:33 am]  jjf28 -- CecilSunkureCecilSunkure shouted: jjf28 except it does. Look at input at output. Notice they are different. That's a compiler there is no output, there's just execution[2016-12-05. : 3:33 am]  Moose -- CecilSunkureCecilSunkure shouted: Thing is I don't care about your hipster "direct interpretation". Every week you hipsters will come up with new names to try and hide your performance tradeoffs They prefer the term "code artisan" to hide their IRL performance tradeoffs C|X^DDDD[2016-12-05. : 3:33 am] CecilSunkure -- jjf28jjf28 shouted: I'm alleging that that does not happen except it does. Look at input at output. Notice they are different. That's a compiler[2016-12-05. : 3:33 am] jjf28 -- CecilSunkureCecilSunkure shouted: Thing is I don't care about your hipster "direct interpretation". Every week you hipsters will come up with new names to try and hide your performance tradeoffs ??? I'm not trying to hide anything, it's a huge performance hit to interpret directly[2016-12-05. : 3:32 am] CecilSunkure -- Thing is I don't care about your hipster "direct interpretation". Every week you hipsters will come up with new names to try and hide your performance tradeoffs[2016-12-05. : 3:32 am] jjf28 -- CecilSunkureCecilSunkure shouted: C executables are compiled once, java anything is compiled every time it runs you're not getting what direct interpretation is...[2016-12-05. : 3:31 am] CecilSunkure -- We're talking about it because you didn't like what I said and brought it up[2016-12-05. : 3:31 am] CecilSunkure -- C executables are compiled once, java anything is compiled every time it runs[2016-12-05. : 3:31 am] jjf28 -- and if it's not "compiling" more than a C executable is "compiling" then why the hell are we even talking about this[2016-12-05. : 3:30 am] CecilSunkure -- You don't have to create new machine instructions to match the definition of a compiler...[2016-12-05. : 3:29 am] jjf28 -- that's not compiling, you're not changing one type of code into another type of code[2016-12-05. : 3:29 am] CecilSunkure -- jjf28jjf28 shouted: CecilSunkure in the case of direct interpretation there is no process of creating machine code that did not previously exist, to be fed to the hardware. The entire JVM is written, no new code is generated, the register values are different and existing routines are invoked in new and interesting ways So the JVM is acting like a "table" of pre-computing machine code instructions. When we read bytecode, it is translated into this "table". Compilerrrr[2016-12-05. : 3:28 am] jjf28 -- CecilSunkureCecilSunkure shouted: If you can't feed that bytecode as-is to the hardware, then you require a compiler in the case of direct interpretation there is no process of creating machine code that did not previously exist, to be fed to the hardware. The entire JVM is written, no new code is generated, the register values are different and existing routines are invoked in new and interesting ways[2016-12-05. : 3:27 am] CecilSunkure -- lil-Infernolil-Inferno shouted: CecilSunkure w/e, getting fatter $tacc$ than you so who cares doubt it.[2016-12-05. : 3:27 am] lil-Inferno -- CecilSunkureCecilSunkure shouted: so i guess if u just write basic bitch code it doesn't matter if u use java w/e, getting fatter $tacc$ than you so who cares[2016-12-05. : 3:26 am] Moose -- Cecil, how much catv you read and how much Plan9 you running on your machine LMAO[2016-12-05. : 3:22 am] CecilSunkure -- They prance around believing in fantasies of free tradeoffs and infinite machine power[2016-12-05. : 3:21 am] CecilSunkure -- Well you didn't admit you were wrong, so I'm still on the topic of you didn't know what a compiler was[2016-12-05. : 3:20 am] CecilSunkure -- Not in the context of defining a compiler, and not being free[2016-12-05. : 3:20 am] jjf28 -- CecilSunkureCecilSunkure shouted: Doesn't matter how tiny or clever those performance hits are uhh, yeah, it does xD[2016-12-05. : 3:18 am] jjf28 -- the first time any given method runs; it's really not a big deal, memory management gets pretty icky tho[2016-12-05. : 3:17 am] CecilSunkure -- Therefor, any language that uses a compiler will take a performance hit.[2016-12-05. : 3:16 am] CecilSunkure -- If you can't feed that bytecode as-is to the hardware, then you require a compiler[2016-12-05. : 3:16 am] jjf28 -- it's not turning the code into statements used by the processor, the statements the processor uses are already written[2016-12-05. : 3:16 am] CecilSunkure -- When we read bytecode, what happens? Eventually, DOESN'T MATTER HOW, it is translated into machine code, because modern processors require machine code to do shit[2016-12-05. : 3:15 am] CecilSunkure -- "A compiler is a special program that processes statements written in a particular programming language and turns them into machine language or "code" that a computer's processor uses."[2016-12-05. : 3:14 am] jjf28 -- they're not compiling the assembly into machine code that runs on the processor, they're running the code on the simulation program[2016-12-05. : 3:13 am] jjf28 -- CecilSunkureCecilSunkure shouted: Interpreter running bytecode is still interpretation. It's a compiler. no, it's not turning it into machine code, it's processing the bytecode manually -- a whole layer of abstraction[2016-12-05. : 3:12 am] CecilSunkure -- The only way it wouldn't be a compiler is if there's no performance hit because it's just machine code[2016-12-05. : 3:12 am] CecilSunkure -- Interpreter running bytecode is still interpretation. It's a compiler.[2016-12-05. : 3:12 am] jjf28 -- CecilSunkureCecilSunkure shouted: That's 1 case, and quite a fantasy at that they're real[2016-12-05. : 3:11 am] jjf28 -- they do have those, also the interpreter can straight up run the bytecode[2016-12-05. : 3:10 am] jjf28 -- CecilSunkureCecilSunkure shouted: jjf28 Bytecode still needs to be compiled. All bytecode does is remove heftier front-end parsing. It's still interpreted. JIT is pretty cool, but at that point really why not use C? Interpretation for cross platform is silly, when interpretation can be much more powerful for fast iteration time... Cross-platform at the cost of performance? Really? I'd argue a good C programmer can shit out features faster than any Java goon, and have it still be cross-platform, without any performance hits. I just told you the cases where it doesn't need to be compiled  |
Members Online: ihjel, 
Ultraviolet
Ultraviolet