If not .Net then what?

[Liz]

Re: If not .Net then what?


"Scott Roberts" <sroberts@no.sp am.here-webworks-software.comwro te in
message news:uG531OZSIH A.4888@TK2MSFTN GP02.phx.gbl...

of for, performing expensive operations within your loops, and using
recursion. Recursion incurs the overhead of having to repeatedly build new
stack frames"

but that's not unique or specific to C#

[Liz]

Re: If not .Net then what?


"Richard Heathfield" <rjh@see.sig.in validwrote in message
news:kfqdneCv4O FyiuvaRVnytAA@b t.com...

"Miha Markic" <miha at rthand comsaid:
>

>>

>>Another objection is that it's slow. The first program I moved to .Net
>>ran around 60 times slower than native - way too slow to be useful.

>>
>It is not that slow.

>
Denial? Interesting.

psycho-babble ...

>But the magnitude of your problem clearly shows that you were doing
>something wrong.

>
No, that's begging the question.

it's begging YOUR question; so what were you doing wrong?

[Liz]

Re: If not .Net then what?


"Richard Heathfield" <rjh@see.sig.in validwrote in message
news:xL6dnXxRu7 EE3-vanZ2dnUVZ8qnin Z2d@bt.com...

Bart C said:
>
<snip>
>

>Perhaps you can post the shortest piece of code that shows the problem.

>
That's a perfectly sensible request, but alas, the answer is no, I can't
do
that. This is because the incident in question occurred (several years
ago) on a client site - NDA applies, so I wouldn't be able to show the
code to you even if I had a copy (which I don't). And since I never use
.Net any more if I can possibly avoid it, I simply don't care enough to
construct an example. Sorry.

so why in god's name are you talking about code you don't have, can't
disclose (nonsense and you know it) and don't really care about ?

[Richard Heathfield]

Re: If not .Net then what?

Liz said:

>
"Richard Heathfield" <rjh@see.sig.in validwrote in message
news:kfqdneCv4O FyiuvaRVnytAA@b t.com...
>

>"Miha Markic" <miha at rthand comsaid:
>>

>>>
>>>Another objection is that it's slow. The first program I moved to .Net
>>>ran around 60 times slower than native - way too slow to be useful.
>>>
>>It is not that slow.

>>
>Denial? Interesting.

>
psycho-babble ...

Sure. Let me put it another way. I find it interesting that people would
rather pretend a problem doesn't exist than find ways of dealing with it.

>>But the magnitude of your problem clearly shows that you were doing
>>something wrong.

>>
>No, that's begging the question.

>
>
it's begging YOUR question; so what were you doing wrong?

It seems you don't know what "begging the question" means. As for what we
were doing wrong, "using .Net" was the conclusion we came to at the time.
So we fixed that.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Richard Heathfield]

Re: If not .Net then what?

Liz said:

<snip>

so why in god's name are you talking about code you don't have, can't
disclose (nonsense and you know it)

Even if I had the legal right to disclose it (which I don't), how could I
disclose code I don't have? Duh.

and don't really care about ?

If you had read my first reply in this thread [1], you would know the
answer, and you wouldn't have had to ask such a silly question.

But to save you the trouble of learning how to track down a Usenet article
by its message ID, I'll tell you. Someone claimed that they'd only ever
heard one objection to .Net. So I offered a couple of other objections -
performance and portability (lack thereof, in both cases). It seems,
however, that this thread has been cross-posted to some .Net fan groups,
and some rather animated defence of .Net has been going on. Well, I can
understand that. But most of the defenders have managed to keep a civil
tongue in their heads. You could learn a thing or two from them.

Message ID: <I-2dnf_EN6fHnujan Z2dnUVZ8qKvnZ2d @bt.com>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Andre Kaufmann]

Re: If not .Net then what?

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Michael D. Ober said:

Happy new year to all.

[...]
It said .Net on the box. Are you telling me Microsoft were lying to my
then-client by claiming it was .Net when really it wasn't .Net? Would you
advise them to sue Microsoft?

The C++ compiler can generate mixed assemblies. Some part is native some
part is managed - hybrid.

In any case, it is not my claim that .Net apps are slower than C++, because
C++ doesn't have a speed. It's a language, not an implementation. The

However you are comparing the speed of a C++ application with a managed
C++ one - don't you ?

speed of the "vanilla" C++ version varied depending on whether the
executable image had been built using Intel, gcc, or Visual Studio.
>
.Net, however, /is/ an implementation, so it does make sense to talk about
the speed of .Net applications - and in my experience it is unacceptably
slow. If you have a different experience, I'm pleased for you.

I've given one example, which proves the opposite. 6 times more assembly
code than the C++ native code generates.

[...]
heard one objection to .Net..." - because he has now heard at least three.

We are still missing an example, which proves it. I've given one which
proves the opposite. That doesn't mean that I claim it to be always the
case.

I can find hundred examples where C++ is faster and where a managed
version is faster. Perhaps more examples where C++ is faster, but the
point is use the best tool for the task you want to accomplish.

If the developer is more experienced in C++ then it will be C++, other
way round the developer might be more productive with another language
but the result mustn't be slower than the C++ implementation.

It's always the same discussion C++ is better than ..., Java is better
than .... or other way round. Or Linux is better than ...., Open Source
is better than....., Shell Xxxx is better, Desktop Xxxx is better.

How about working together ? Using the best tools from both sides,
languages etc. ?

Andre

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

Re: If not .Net then what?

Richard Heathfield wrote:

I'm delighted to hear it, but in a fast-moving business like software
development you don't get two chances at a first impression.

:-)

You are narrowing your tool set unnecessarily if you assume
that the x60 difference is a general case.

Arne

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

Re: If not .Net then what?

Richard Heathfield wrote:

What's to figure out? .Net was as slow as syrup, when we already had
something as fast as fireworks. So obviously we dropped it. You can say
it's down to a lack of programmer skill if you like, but your claim
translates to ".Net is so difficult that it can't be used efficiently by
two programmers with over 40 years C++ experience between them" - which
doesn't bode well for .Net, does it?

I don't think it say much.

Ask 2 programmers with 40 years of C# experience - hmmm make that
10 programmers with 40 years of C# experience - to write a C++ app.

I doubt the result will be good. And that is not C++'s fault.

It is not clear to me whether the .NET language used was C# or
managed C++ aka C++/CLI, but the latter looks like C++ but
is significantly different anyway.

Arne

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

Re: If not .Net then what?

jim wrote:

"Arne Vajhøj" <arne@vajhoej.d kwrote in message
news:477550ae$0 $90267$14726298 @news.sunsite.d k...

>jim wrote:

>>I strongly disagree. Although I am no .Net expert, I am pretty adept at
>>the simple stuff. And, the simple .Net apps that I wrote had slower UIs
>>and presented data slower than their desktop counterparts.

>Hm. That text does not really make any sense. A win forms .NET app
>is a desktop app as well. And comparing a web app with a desktop app
>is at least when it comes to speed comparing apples with oranges.

>
The .Net apps I was refering to here were all desktop apps.

Then I do not understand the "slower than their desktop counterparts".

Arne

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

Re: If not .Net then what?

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Okay - *at the time*, no, we didn't bother. We simply showed the boss the
comparative figures, and he agreed that there was no point in continuing
with .Net. After all, everyone has deadlines, and we'd already beaten
ours. The last thing anyone wanted was to add another three months to the
project while we fiddled around trying to figure out how to get Yet
Another Microsoft Technology to do as it's told. It was that or deliver
fast code, early, within budget. We chose the latter. Wouldn't you?

I think everybody would.

Just don't conclude too much from the experience.

Arne

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

Re: If not .Net then what?

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Jon Skeet [C# MVP] said:

>Do you think that .NET would be widely used at all if it were typically
>60x slower than native code?

>
Yes, I'm afraid I do.

Don't.

0-60% is more likely to see.

Arne

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

Re: If not .Net then what?

Andre Kaufmann wrote:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>Jon Skeet [C# MVP] said:

>>Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.in validwrote:
>>>I simply don't care enough to construct an example. Sorry.
>>In that case it would probably be worth avoiding the assertion that
>>.NET is slow in future.

>>
>Yeah, fair enough - I'll revise it to "100% of the .Net projects I've
>been involved with have run 60 times slower than their native
>equivalents" . :-)

>
Since you don't write which compiler and settings you used and which
code basis (C - Code / C-Sharp etc.) I don't believe you've compiled
.NET code at all.

So because a guy can not remember the compiler switches he used on
a project 4-5 years then you do not believe the project existed.

Hmmmm. I guess I have been working on bunch of non existing projects
in my time.

Arne

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

Re: If not .Net then what?

CBFalconer wrote:

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" wrote:
... snip ...

>I suspect that if I wrote C++ trying to use .NET idioms, that
>could be slow as well - but I wouldn't make the assumption that
>that was the fault of C++.
>>
>It's worth accepting that different platforms have different
>idioms, and that you shouldn't expect your first experiences in
>a "new" platform to compare well with experiences in a platform
>on which you have a lot of experience.
>>
>Now, if you'd hired a .NET developer (not necessarily an expert
>- just someone who was genuinely familiar with the platform),
>profiled the app, *tried* to make it perform well, and still
>failed - *that* would have been good evidence that .NET was
>slow for your particular situation. (It still wouldn't have
>been good *general* evidence of course.)

>
I think you are all missing the fundamental point. C++ has a well
known, and generally adhered to, ISO standard.

And what is ECMA-334 ?

.NET is basically a
single supplier system. Richard and associates prefer not to be
limited to such a small user area.

You consider Windows a small area ??

Hmmmm.

The fact that they could
immediately find bugs [1] is confirmation of their wisdom.
>
[1] I define a slow-down factor of 60 as a bug.

No it does not.

Since it is unclear what exactly caused the lack of
performance.

All indications is that something was not ported properly.

I do not blame the dev team for that. Brand new technology
introduced late in a project with a deadline is not a recipe
for success.

But considering it wisdom may be stretching it !

Arne

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

Re: If not .Net then what?

Andre Kaufmann wrote:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>Andre Kaufmann said:
>>

>>I don't believe you've compiled .NET code at all.

>>
>Then we have nothing further to discuss.

>
O.K., you stated you don't want to port your code to .NET in another
post and you said that your code runs 60 times slower under .NET ?
>
If I ask how you did it you simply ignore the questions. And if I try to
tickle you a bit to get it out, you seem to be offended.
>
You blame others knowing nothing of performance, but you can't tell us
why your code port (was it ?) has been that slow.
>
So the facts:
>
a) You have C++ code
b) Stated you compiled it somehow as .NET application
c) Stated that it runs 60 times slower
d) Have no single proof
e) Don't tell us how you did b)
f) Blaming others to be kind of dumb by using the words "clicky-pointy"
g) Can't prove it all

He did explain that it was many years ago and that he obviously
could not provide the code (which should not even be necesarry
to state BTW).

And it is a free world.

He can post his opinion on .NET performance.

People can ask if he has a code example.

And he can explain that it was business code.

And then readers must summarize all experiences posted and
make their own conclusions.

But you can not demand proof.

Arne

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

Re: If not .Net then what?

Andre Kaufmann wrote:

Currently my conclusion, derived from the posts was:
----------------------------------------------------
>
You have compiled your code with Visual Studio C++ .NET in the debug
version, which is .... slow compared to the release switch. This is a
rather common "problem", when switching the compilers from CBuilder to
VStudio, because by default CBuilder (the old version) hasn't supported
multiple configurations and starts by default with all optimizations
turned on.
>
Even if you turn all optimizations on in VStudios debug default
configuration of a C++ project, the debug heap is still active and slows
down heavily your application. Since you are using commonly *not*
VStudio but only CBuilder I came to the conclusion above.
>
Shouldn't be offensive to you at all.

1) I doubt that could give a x60 difference

2) C++ programmers usually check compiler switches

3) You can not serious expect him to remember the project settings
on a project 4-5 years ago.

Arne