C++ vs. C# vs. Assembly Language

[nospam]

Just wondering,

What do you think the difference in performance would be between

(1.) Compiled C#
(2.) Compiled C++
(3.) and Assembly Language

And how would the mix be if some if any of these languages had to hit
against a SQL Server database

And would the differences be more or less different is you had to use
ASP.NET?

I guess, what I am asking is how would Assembly Language affect the overall
performance?

And does anyone code in assembly language anyway??

Thanks.

[Stefan Simek]

Re: C++ vs. C# vs. Assembly Language

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com > wrote in message
news:#b8eu#UkDH A.976@tk2msftng p13.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Just wondering,
>
> What do you think the difference in performance would be between
>
> (1.) Compiled C#[/color]

C# gets compiled to MSIL, which is a machine independent code. The code is
JIT-ted (just-in-time compiled) during runtime, into native code.
[color=blue]
> (2.) Compiled C++[/color]

The C++ compiler generates different output depending on if it's used with
or without .NET (/clr compiler option). With the /clr option, the output is
much the same as from C# (except for much better managed-unmanaged interop
capabilities and much worse code readability). Without it, it gets compiled
directly to native assembly code.
[color=blue]
> (3.) and Assembly Language[/color]

What do you mean by assembly language? If you mean x86 assembler, then I
really think it's by far the worst way to go. If you mean MSIL, I guess it
would be pointless to write code in it, because it's pretty "high-level" and
you probably couldn't write better code than that generated by C# or other
compiler...
[color=blue]
>
> And how would the mix be if some if any of these languages had to hit
> against a SQL Server database[/color]

???
[color=blue]
>
> And would the differences be more or less different is you had to use
> ASP.NET?[/color]

???
[color=blue]
>
> I guess, what I am asking is how would Assembly Language affect the[/color]
overall[color=blue]
> performance?[/color]

???
[color=blue]
>
> And does anyone code in assembly language anyway??[/color]

Well, so I guess you are talking the x86 assembly... First, I don't really
understand the way you would like to access SQL Server and even less ASP.NET
from it, which requires managed environment (assembler isn't and never could
be). As for the speed of the code, you would probably find out that your
assembly code is slower than the one generated by any of the compilers, as
the compilers know the ways how does the processor execute instructions,
cache data, etc. Cache misses, page faults and similar things are the
biggest performance hogs in the modern world. It's hard to write code in
assembly with all such things in mind, and a compiler will make all these
things easily. Not to even mention things such as object oriented
programming, which you'll never be able to do in assembly. For more
reference, see
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...anagedcode.asp.
[color=blue]
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>[/color]

Please don't post to so many groups. By my opinion, this question belongs to
microsoft.publi c.dotnet.framew ork.performance .

Hope this helps,
Stefan

[Stefan Simek]

Re: C++ vs. C# vs. Assembly Language

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com > wrote in message
news:#b8eu#UkDH A.976@tk2msftng p13.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Just wondering,
>
> What do you think the difference in performance would be between
>
> (1.) Compiled C#[/color]

C# gets compiled to MSIL, which is a machine independent code. The code is
JIT-ted (just-in-time compiled) during runtime, into native code.
[color=blue]
> (2.) Compiled C++[/color]

The C++ compiler generates different output depending on if it's used with
or without .NET (/clr compiler option). With the /clr option, the output is
much the same as from C# (except for much better managed-unmanaged interop
capabilities and much worse code readability). Without it, it gets compiled
directly to native assembly code.
[color=blue]
> (3.) and Assembly Language[/color]

What do you mean by assembly language? If you mean x86 assembler, then I
really think it's by far the worst way to go. If you mean MSIL, I guess it
would be pointless to write code in it, because it's pretty "high-level" and
you probably couldn't write better code than that generated by C# or other
compiler...
[color=blue]
>
> And how would the mix be if some if any of these languages had to hit
> against a SQL Server database[/color]

???
[color=blue]
>
> And would the differences be more or less different is you had to use
> ASP.NET?[/color]

???
[color=blue]
>
> I guess, what I am asking is how would Assembly Language affect the[/color]
overall[color=blue]
> performance?[/color]

???
[color=blue]
>
> And does anyone code in assembly language anyway??[/color]

Well, so I guess you are talking the x86 assembly... First, I don't really
understand the way you would like to access SQL Server and even less ASP.NET
from it, which requires managed environment (assembler isn't and never could
be). As for the speed of the code, you would probably find out that your
assembly code is slower than the one generated by any of the compilers, as
the compilers know the ways how does the processor execute instructions,
cache data, etc. Cache misses, page faults and similar things are the
biggest performance hogs in the modern world. It's hard to write code in
assembly with all such things in mind, and a compiler will make all these
things easily. Not to even mention things such as object oriented
programming, which you'll never be able to do in assembly. For more
reference, see
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...anagedcode.asp.
[color=blue]
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>[/color]

Please don't post to so many groups. By my opinion, this question belongs to
microsoft.publi c.dotnet.framew ork.performance .

Hope this helps,
Stefan

[Chris Taylor]

Re: C++ vs. C# vs. Assembly Language

Hi,

Assembly language in the form of x86 assembly would seldom be used to
develop a desktop or distributed type application, it is more suited to
system level OS or embedded software for microcontroller s etc. Though well
written Assembly would outperform most compiled languages, if the system is
relying on database access the database becomes the bottle neck so the
Assembly code would not make much difference. Assembly would also carry a
sever overhead on development time due to the complexity and lack of object
oriented constructs.

With regard to C# and unmanaged C++, well I think that this is really a case
of your preference in languages. However, in my opinion, C# will drastically
short-circuit your development time and help provide a more robust system.
The performance penalty incurred by running in a managed system is not that
significant inlight of the benefits gained from garbage collection,
structured exception handling etc. On the other hand managed C++ provides
many of the benefits of C# in terms of development time and code security
while still enabling you to use the C++ libraries you are used to. IMHO, the
major catch with managed C++ is the fact that managed C++ is not verifiable
by the CLR therefore not all code is necessarily secure, while C# allows you
to make the decision as to whether you writing 100% safe and verifiable code
or you are prepared to forfeited verifiability and use unsafe code.

If your reference to Assembly was actually a reference to the IL code, in
that case I believe that it is quite feasible to generate a application
using IL. IL would allow you to make use of features that are yet to be
exposed by some of the higher level .NET languages such as C#, while still
giving you the benefits of object oriented code and structured exception
handling etc. Once again however the IL is much more fine grained therefore
increasing the physical amount of code you will be typing and it is less
readable than C# (though the IL is very readable!).

In all cases, once there is a database involved, I believe that the
performance is largely dependant on you database and database design. And
you should choose the language that most easily translates to the business
problem you are trying to solve.

Hope this helps

Chris Taylor



"nospam" <n@ntspam.com > wrote in message
news:%23b8eu%23 UkDHA.976@tk2ms ftngp13.phx.gbl ...[color=blue]
> Just wondering,
>
> What do you think the difference in performance would be between
>
> (1.) Compiled C#
> (2.) Compiled C++
> (3.) and Assembly Language
>
> And how would the mix be if some if any of these languages had to hit
> against a SQL Server database
>
> And would the differences be more or less different is you had to use
> ASP.NET?
>
> I guess, what I am asking is how would Assembly Language affect the[/color]
overall[color=blue]
> performance?
>
> And does anyone code in assembly language anyway??
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>[/color]

[Chris Taylor]

Re: C++ vs. C# vs. Assembly Language

Hi,

Assembly language in the form of x86 assembly would seldom be used to
develop a desktop or distributed type application, it is more suited to
system level OS or embedded software for microcontroller s etc. Though well
written Assembly would outperform most compiled languages, if the system is
relying on database access the database becomes the bottle neck so the
Assembly code would not make much difference. Assembly would also carry a
sever overhead on development time due to the complexity and lack of object
oriented constructs.

With regard to C# and unmanaged C++, well I think that this is really a case
of your preference in languages. However, in my opinion, C# will drastically
short-circuit your development time and help provide a more robust system.
The performance penalty incurred by running in a managed system is not that
significant inlight of the benefits gained from garbage collection,
structured exception handling etc. On the other hand managed C++ provides
many of the benefits of C# in terms of development time and code security
while still enabling you to use the C++ libraries you are used to. IMHO, the
major catch with managed C++ is the fact that managed C++ is not verifiable
by the CLR therefore not all code is necessarily secure, while C# allows you
to make the decision as to whether you writing 100% safe and verifiable code
or you are prepared to forfeited verifiability and use unsafe code.

If your reference to Assembly was actually a reference to the IL code, in
that case I believe that it is quite feasible to generate a application
using IL. IL would allow you to make use of features that are yet to be
exposed by some of the higher level .NET languages such as C#, while still
giving you the benefits of object oriented code and structured exception
handling etc. Once again however the IL is much more fine grained therefore
increasing the physical amount of code you will be typing and it is less
readable than C# (though the IL is very readable!).

In all cases, once there is a database involved, I believe that the
performance is largely dependant on you database and database design. And
you should choose the language that most easily translates to the business
problem you are trying to solve.

Hope this helps

Chris Taylor



"nospam" <n@ntspam.com > wrote in message
news:%23b8eu%23 UkDHA.976@tk2ms ftngp13.phx.gbl ...[color=blue]
> Just wondering,
>
> What do you think the difference in performance would be between
>
> (1.) Compiled C#
> (2.) Compiled C++
> (3.) and Assembly Language
>
> And how would the mix be if some if any of these languages had to hit
> against a SQL Server database
>
> And would the differences be more or less different is you had to use
> ASP.NET?
>
> I guess, what I am asking is how would Assembly Language affect the[/color]
overall[color=blue]
> performance?
>
> And does anyone code in assembly language anyway??
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>[/color]

[Daniel O'Connell]

Re: C++ vs. C# vs. Assembly Language


"Stefan Simek" <simek.nospam@k ascomp.nospam.s k> wrote in message
news:%23%23U8Cn VkDHA.1672@TK2M SFTNGP09.phx.gb l...[color=blue]
> "nospam" <n@ntspam.com > wrote in message
> news:#b8eu#UkDH A.976@tk2msftng p13.phx.gbl...[color=green]
> > Just wondering,
> >
> > What do you think the difference in performance would be between
> >
> > (1.) Compiled C#[/color]
>
> C# gets compiled to MSIL, which is a machine independent code. The code is
> JIT-ted (just-in-time compiled) during runtime, into native code.
>[color=green]
> > (2.) Compiled C++[/color]
>
> The C++ compiler generates different output depending on if it's used with
> or without .NET (/clr compiler option). With the /clr option, the output[/color]
is[color=blue]
> much the same as from C# (except for much better managed-unmanaged interop
> capabilities and much worse code readability). Without it, it gets[/color]
compiled[color=blue]
> directly to native assembly code.
>[color=green]
> > (3.) and Assembly Language[/color]
>
> What do you mean by assembly language? If you mean x86 assembler, then I
> really think it's by far the worst way to go. If you mean MSIL, I guess it
> would be pointless to write code in it, because it's pretty "high-level"[/color]
and[color=blue]
> you probably couldn't write better code than that generated by C# or other
> compiler...
>[color=green]
> >
> > And how would the mix be if some if any of these languages had to hit
> > against a SQL Server database[/color]
>
> ???
>[color=green]
> >
> > And would the differences be more or less different is you had to use
> > ASP.NET?[/color]
>
> ???
>[color=green]
> >
> > I guess, what I am asking is how would Assembly Language affect the[/color]
> overall[color=green]
> > performance?[/color]
>
> ???
>[color=green]
> >
> > And does anyone code in assembly language anyway??[/color]
>
> Well, so I guess you are talking the x86 assembly... First, I don't really
> understand the way you would like to access SQL Server and even less[/color]
ASP.NET[color=blue]
> from it, which requires managed environment (assembler isn't and never[/color]
could[color=blue]
> be). As for the speed of the code, you would probably find out that your
> assembly code is slower than the one generated by any of the compilers, as
> the compilers know the ways how does the processor execute instructions,
> cache data, etc. Cache misses, page faults and similar things are the
> biggest performance hogs in the modern world. It's hard to write code in
> assembly with all such things in mind, and a compiler will make all these
> things easily. Not to even mention things such as object oriented
> programming, which you'll never be able to do in assembly. For more
> reference, see
>[/color]
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...anagedcode.asp.
It would be possible, in theory, to access SQL server via ODBC, but it would
be a very unpleasent experiance. You can do anything in assembly that youcan
do in C++, if you are willing to spend a lot of time working on it.

Generally you would only use assembly in cases where you can beat the
compiler: rendering routines, mathmatic operations, etc. In other cases a
good compiler will always beat a human, there just really is far to much
information to handle.[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> >[/color]
>
> Please don't post to so many groups. By my opinion, this question belongs[/color]
to[color=blue]
> microsoft.publi c.dotnet.framew ork.performance .
>
> Hope this helps,
> Stefan
>
>[/color]

[Daniel O'Connell]

Re: C++ vs. C# vs. Assembly Language


"Stefan Simek" <simek.nospam@k ascomp.nospam.s k> wrote in message
news:%23%23U8Cn VkDHA.1672@TK2M SFTNGP09.phx.gb l...[color=blue]
> "nospam" <n@ntspam.com > wrote in message
> news:#b8eu#UkDH A.976@tk2msftng p13.phx.gbl...[color=green]
> > Just wondering,
> >
> > What do you think the difference in performance would be between
> >
> > (1.) Compiled C#[/color]
>
> C# gets compiled to MSIL, which is a machine independent code. The code is
> JIT-ted (just-in-time compiled) during runtime, into native code.
>[color=green]
> > (2.) Compiled C++[/color]
>
> The C++ compiler generates different output depending on if it's used with
> or without .NET (/clr compiler option). With the /clr option, the output[/color]
is[color=blue]
> much the same as from C# (except for much better managed-unmanaged interop
> capabilities and much worse code readability). Without it, it gets[/color]
compiled[color=blue]
> directly to native assembly code.
>[color=green]
> > (3.) and Assembly Language[/color]
>
> What do you mean by assembly language? If you mean x86 assembler, then I
> really think it's by far the worst way to go. If you mean MSIL, I guess it
> would be pointless to write code in it, because it's pretty "high-level"[/color]
and[color=blue]
> you probably couldn't write better code than that generated by C# or other
> compiler...
>[color=green]
> >
> > And how would the mix be if some if any of these languages had to hit
> > against a SQL Server database[/color]
>
> ???
>[color=green]
> >
> > And would the differences be more or less different is you had to use
> > ASP.NET?[/color]
>
> ???
>[color=green]
> >
> > I guess, what I am asking is how would Assembly Language affect the[/color]
> overall[color=green]
> > performance?[/color]
>
> ???
>[color=green]
> >
> > And does anyone code in assembly language anyway??[/color]
>
> Well, so I guess you are talking the x86 assembly... First, I don't really
> understand the way you would like to access SQL Server and even less[/color]
ASP.NET[color=blue]
> from it, which requires managed environment (assembler isn't and never[/color]
could[color=blue]
> be). As for the speed of the code, you would probably find out that your
> assembly code is slower than the one generated by any of the compilers, as
> the compilers know the ways how does the processor execute instructions,
> cache data, etc. Cache misses, page faults and similar things are the
> biggest performance hogs in the modern world. It's hard to write code in
> assembly with all such things in mind, and a compiler will make all these
> things easily. Not to even mention things such as object oriented
> programming, which you'll never be able to do in assembly. For more
> reference, see
>[/color]
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...anagedcode.asp.
It would be possible, in theory, to access SQL server via ODBC, but it would
be a very unpleasent experiance. You can do anything in assembly that youcan
do in C++, if you are willing to spend a lot of time working on it.

Generally you would only use assembly in cases where you can beat the
compiler: rendering routines, mathmatic operations, etc. In other cases a
good compiler will always beat a human, there just really is far to much
information to handle.[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> >[/color]
>
> Please don't post to so many groups. By my opinion, this question belongs[/color]
to[color=blue]
> microsoft.publi c.dotnet.framew ork.performance .
>
> Hope this helps,
> Stefan
>
>[/color]

[Mr.Tickle]

Re: C++ vs. C# vs. Assembly Language

As with anything, it will be dependant on the implementation.

You gain alot more than just performance in a managed runtime.

You cannot say A is better than B, you must put this into context and have
identical setups and implementation to test a particular performance area.

So I see these arguments as is unmanaged C++ better than C# as pointless,
you need to be more specific.



"Chris Taylor" <chris_taylor_z a@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OncbrpVkDH A.2080@TK2MSFTN GP10.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Hi,
>
> Assembly language in the form of x86 assembly would seldom be used to
> develop a desktop or distributed type application, it is more suited to
> system level OS or embedded software for microcontroller s etc. Though well
> written Assembly would outperform most compiled languages, if the system[/color]
is[color=blue]
> relying on database access the database becomes the bottle neck so the
> Assembly code would not make much difference. Assembly would also carry a
> sever overhead on development time due to the complexity and lack of[/color]
object[color=blue]
> oriented constructs.
>
> With regard to C# and unmanaged C++, well I think that this is really a[/color]
case[color=blue]
> of your preference in languages. However, in my opinion, C# will[/color]
drastically[color=blue]
> short-circuit your development time and help provide a more robust system.
> The performance penalty incurred by running in a managed system is not[/color]
that[color=blue]
> significant inlight of the benefits gained from garbage collection,
> structured exception handling etc. On the other hand managed C++ provides
> many of the benefits of C# in terms of development time and code security
> while still enabling you to use the C++ libraries you are used to. IMHO,[/color]
the[color=blue]
> major catch with managed C++ is the fact that managed C++ is not[/color]
verifiable[color=blue]
> by the CLR therefore not all code is necessarily secure, while C# allows[/color]
you[color=blue]
> to make the decision as to whether you writing 100% safe and verifiable[/color]
code[color=blue]
> or you are prepared to forfeited verifiability and use unsafe code.
>
> If your reference to Assembly was actually a reference to the IL code, in
> that case I believe that it is quite feasible to generate a application
> using IL. IL would allow you to make use of features that are yet to be
> exposed by some of the higher level .NET languages such as C#, while still
> giving you the benefits of object oriented code and structured exception
> handling etc. Once again however the IL is much more fine grained[/color]
therefore[color=blue]
> increasing the physical amount of code you will be typing and it is less
> readable than C# (though the IL is very readable!).
>
> In all cases, once there is a database involved, I believe that the
> performance is largely dependant on you database and database design. And
> you should choose the language that most easily translates to the business
> problem you are trying to solve.
>
> Hope this helps
>
> Chris Taylor
>
>
>
> "nospam" <n@ntspam.com > wrote in message
> news:%23b8eu%23 UkDHA.976@tk2ms ftngp13.phx.gbl ...[color=green]
> > Just wondering,
> >
> > What do you think the difference in performance would be between
> >
> > (1.) Compiled C#
> > (2.) Compiled C++
> > (3.) and Assembly Language
> >
> > And how would the mix be if some if any of these languages had to hit
> > against a SQL Server database
> >
> > And would the differences be more or less different is you had to use
> > ASP.NET?
> >
> > I guess, what I am asking is how would Assembly Language affect the[/color]
> overall[color=green]
> > performance?
> >
> > And does anyone code in assembly language anyway??
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> >[/color]
>
>[/color]

[Mr.Tickle]

Re: C++ vs. C# vs. Assembly Language

As with anything, it will be dependant on the implementation.

You gain alot more than just performance in a managed runtime.

You cannot say A is better than B, you must put this into context and have
identical setups and implementation to test a particular performance area.

So I see these arguments as is unmanaged C++ better than C# as pointless,
you need to be more specific.



"Chris Taylor" <chris_taylor_z a@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OncbrpVkDH A.2080@TK2MSFTN GP10.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Hi,
>
> Assembly language in the form of x86 assembly would seldom be used to
> develop a desktop or distributed type application, it is more suited to
> system level OS or embedded software for microcontroller s etc. Though well
> written Assembly would outperform most compiled languages, if the system[/color]
is[color=blue]
> relying on database access the database becomes the bottle neck so the
> Assembly code would not make much difference. Assembly would also carry a
> sever overhead on development time due to the complexity and lack of[/color]
object[color=blue]
> oriented constructs.
>
> With regard to C# and unmanaged C++, well I think that this is really a[/color]
case[color=blue]
> of your preference in languages. However, in my opinion, C# will[/color]
drastically[color=blue]
> short-circuit your development time and help provide a more robust system.
> The performance penalty incurred by running in a managed system is not[/color]
that[color=blue]
> significant inlight of the benefits gained from garbage collection,
> structured exception handling etc. On the other hand managed C++ provides
> many of the benefits of C# in terms of development time and code security
> while still enabling you to use the C++ libraries you are used to. IMHO,[/color]
the[color=blue]
> major catch with managed C++ is the fact that managed C++ is not[/color]
verifiable[color=blue]
> by the CLR therefore not all code is necessarily secure, while C# allows[/color]
you[color=blue]
> to make the decision as to whether you writing 100% safe and verifiable[/color]
code[color=blue]
> or you are prepared to forfeited verifiability and use unsafe code.
>
> If your reference to Assembly was actually a reference to the IL code, in
> that case I believe that it is quite feasible to generate a application
> using IL. IL would allow you to make use of features that are yet to be
> exposed by some of the higher level .NET languages such as C#, while still
> giving you the benefits of object oriented code and structured exception
> handling etc. Once again however the IL is much more fine grained[/color]
therefore[color=blue]
> increasing the physical amount of code you will be typing and it is less
> readable than C# (though the IL is very readable!).
>
> In all cases, once there is a database involved, I believe that the
> performance is largely dependant on you database and database design. And
> you should choose the language that most easily translates to the business
> problem you are trying to solve.
>
> Hope this helps
>
> Chris Taylor
>
>
>
> "nospam" <n@ntspam.com > wrote in message
> news:%23b8eu%23 UkDHA.976@tk2ms ftngp13.phx.gbl ...[color=green]
> > Just wondering,
> >
> > What do you think the difference in performance would be between
> >
> > (1.) Compiled C#
> > (2.) Compiled C++
> > (3.) and Assembly Language
> >
> > And how would the mix be if some if any of these languages had to hit
> > against a SQL Server database
> >
> > And would the differences be more or less different is you had to use
> > ASP.NET?
> >
> > I guess, what I am asking is how would Assembly Language affect the[/color]
> overall[color=green]
> > performance?
> >
> > And does anyone code in assembly language anyway??
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> >[/color]
>
>[/color]

[Chris Taylor]

Re: C++ vs. C# vs. Assembly Language

Hi Mr Tickle,

Maybe I misunderstand your response here, but I do not believe that I ever
stated A is better than B. If I did I assure you it was entirely
unintentional. I merely tried to give a brief overview comparison of
Assembly, IL, C#, managed and unmanaged C++. And clearly state in conclusion
that the language chosen should be the language that suites the solution.

Regards

Chris Taylor

"Mr.Tickle" <MrTickle@mrmen .com> wrote in message
news:%234uiCEXk DHA.2456@TK2MSF TNGP09.phx.gbl. ..[color=blue]
> As with anything, it will be dependant on the implementation.
>
> You gain alot more than just performance in a managed runtime.
>
> You cannot say A is better than B, you must put this into context and have
> identical setups and implementation to test a particular performance area.
>
> So I see these arguments as is unmanaged C++ better than C# as pointless,
> you need to be more specific.
>
>
>
> "Chris Taylor" <chris_taylor_z a@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OncbrpVkDH A.2080@TK2MSFTN GP10.phx.gbl...[color=green]
> > Hi,
> >
> > Assembly language in the form of x86 assembly would seldom be used to
> > develop a desktop or distributed type application, it is more suited to
> > system level OS or embedded software for microcontroller s etc. Though[/color][/color]
well[color=blue][color=green]
> > written Assembly would outperform most compiled languages, if the system[/color]
> is[color=green]
> > relying on database access the database becomes the bottle neck so the
> > Assembly code would not make much difference. Assembly would also carry[/color][/color]
a[color=blue][color=green]
> > sever overhead on development time due to the complexity and lack of[/color]
> object[color=green]
> > oriented constructs.
> >
> > With regard to C# and unmanaged C++, well I think that this is really a[/color]
> case[color=green]
> > of your preference in languages. However, in my opinion, C# will[/color]
> drastically[color=green]
> > short-circuit your development time and help provide a more robust[/color][/color]
system.[color=blue][color=green]
> > The performance penalty incurred by running in a managed system is not[/color]
> that[color=green]
> > significant inlight of the benefits gained from garbage collection,
> > structured exception handling etc. On the other hand managed C++[/color][/color]
provides[color=blue][color=green]
> > many of the benefits of C# in terms of development time and code[/color][/color]
security[color=blue][color=green]
> > while still enabling you to use the C++ libraries you are used to. IMHO,[/color]
> the[color=green]
> > major catch with managed C++ is the fact that managed C++ is not[/color]
> verifiable[color=green]
> > by the CLR therefore not all code is necessarily secure, while C# allows[/color]
> you[color=green]
> > to make the decision as to whether you writing 100% safe and verifiable[/color]
> code[color=green]
> > or you are prepared to forfeited verifiability and use unsafe code.
> >
> > If your reference to Assembly was actually a reference to the IL code,[/color][/color]
in[color=blue][color=green]
> > that case I believe that it is quite feasible to generate a application
> > using IL. IL would allow you to make use of features that are yet to be
> > exposed by some of the higher level .NET languages such as C#, while[/color][/color]
still[color=blue][color=green]
> > giving you the benefits of object oriented code and structured exception
> > handling etc. Once again however the IL is much more fine grained[/color]
> therefore[color=green]
> > increasing the physical amount of code you will be typing and it is less
> > readable than C# (though the IL is very readable!).
> >
> > In all cases, once there is a database involved, I believe that the
> > performance is largely dependant on you database and database design.[/color][/color]
And[color=blue][color=green]
> > you should choose the language that most easily translates to the[/color][/color]
business[color=blue][color=green]
> > problem you are trying to solve.
> >
> > Hope this helps
> >
> > Chris Taylor
> >
> >
> >
> > "nospam" <n@ntspam.com > wrote in message
> > news:%23b8eu%23 UkDHA.976@tk2ms ftngp13.phx.gbl ...[color=darkred]
> > > Just wondering,
> > >
> > > What do you think the difference in performance would be between
> > >
> > > (1.) Compiled C#
> > > (2.) Compiled C++
> > > (3.) and Assembly Language
> > >
> > > And how would the mix be if some if any of these languages had to hit
> > > against a SQL Server database
> > >
> > > And would the differences be more or less different is you had to use
> > > ASP.NET?
> > >
> > > I guess, what I am asking is how would Assembly Language affect the[/color]
> > overall[color=darkred]
> > > performance?
> > >
> > > And does anyone code in assembly language anyway??
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > >
> > >[/color]
> >
> >[/color]
>
>[/color]

[Mr.Tickle]

Re: C++ vs. C# vs. Assembly Language

It was to the original poster, sorry, just got in the wrong reply thing.



"Chris Taylor" <chris_taylor_z a@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OCt95WXkDH A.1656@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Hi Mr Tickle,
>
> Maybe I misunderstand your response here, but I do not believe that I ever
> stated A is better than B. If I did I assure you it was entirely
> unintentional. I merely tried to give a brief overview comparison of
> Assembly, IL, C#, managed and unmanaged C++. And clearly state in[/color]
conclusion[color=blue]
> that the language chosen should be the language that suites the solution.
>
> Regards
>
> Chris Taylor
>
> "Mr.Tickle" <MrTickle@mrmen .com> wrote in message
> news:%234uiCEXk DHA.2456@TK2MSF TNGP09.phx.gbl. ..[color=green]
> > As with anything, it will be dependant on the implementation.
> >
> > You gain alot more than just performance in a managed runtime.
> >
> > You cannot say A is better than B, you must put this into context and[/color][/color]
have[color=blue][color=green]
> > identical setups and implementation to test a particular performance[/color][/color]
area.[color=blue][color=green]
> >
> > So I see these arguments as is unmanaged C++ better than C# as[/color][/color]
pointless,[color=blue][color=green]
> > you need to be more specific.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Chris Taylor" <chris_taylor_z a@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:OncbrpVkDH A.2080@TK2MSFTN GP10.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Assembly language in the form of x86 assembly would seldom be used to
> > > develop a desktop or distributed type application, it is more suited[/color][/color][/color]
to[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > system level OS or embedded software for microcontroller s etc. Though[/color][/color]
> well[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > written Assembly would outperform most compiled languages, if the[/color][/color][/color]
system[color=blue][color=green]
> > is[color=darkred]
> > > relying on database access the database becomes the bottle neck so the
> > > Assembly code would not make much difference. Assembly would also[/color][/color][/color]
carry[color=blue]
> a[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > sever overhead on development time due to the complexity and lack of[/color]
> > object[color=darkred]
> > > oriented constructs.
> > >
> > > With regard to C# and unmanaged C++, well I think that this is really[/color][/color][/color]
a[color=blue][color=green]
> > case[color=darkred]
> > > of your preference in languages. However, in my opinion, C# will[/color]
> > drastically[color=darkred]
> > > short-circuit your development time and help provide a more robust[/color][/color]
> system.[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > The performance penalty incurred by running in a managed system is not[/color]
> > that[color=darkred]
> > > significant inlight of the benefits gained from garbage collection,
> > > structured exception handling etc. On the other hand managed C++[/color][/color]
> provides[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > many of the benefits of C# in terms of development time and code[/color][/color]
> security[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > while still enabling you to use the C++ libraries you are used to.[/color][/color][/color]
IMHO,[color=blue][color=green]
> > the[color=darkred]
> > > major catch with managed C++ is the fact that managed C++ is not[/color]
> > verifiable[color=darkred]
> > > by the CLR therefore not all code is necessarily secure, while C#[/color][/color][/color]
allows[color=blue][color=green]
> > you[color=darkred]
> > > to make the decision as to whether you writing 100% safe and[/color][/color][/color]
verifiable[color=blue][color=green]
> > code[color=darkred]
> > > or you are prepared to forfeited verifiability and use unsafe code.
> > >
> > > If your reference to Assembly was actually a reference to the IL code,[/color][/color]
> in[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > that case I believe that it is quite feasible to generate a[/color][/color][/color]
application[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > using IL. IL would allow you to make use of features that are yet to[/color][/color][/color]
be[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > exposed by some of the higher level .NET languages such as C#, while[/color][/color]
> still[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > giving you the benefits of object oriented code and structured[/color][/color][/color]
exception[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > handling etc. Once again however the IL is much more fine grained[/color]
> > therefore[color=darkred]
> > > increasing the physical amount of code you will be typing and it is[/color][/color][/color]
less[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > readable than C# (though the IL is very readable!).
> > >
> > > In all cases, once there is a database involved, I believe that the
> > > performance is largely dependant on you database and database design.[/color][/color]
> And[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > you should choose the language that most easily translates to the[/color][/color]
> business[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > problem you are trying to solve.
> > >
> > > Hope this helps
> > >
> > > Chris Taylor
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "nospam" <n@ntspam.com > wrote in message
> > > news:%23b8eu%23 UkDHA.976@tk2ms ftngp13.phx.gbl ...
> > > > Just wondering,
> > > >
> > > > What do you think the difference in performance would be between
> > > >
> > > > (1.) Compiled C#
> > > > (2.) Compiled C++
> > > > (3.) and Assembly Language
> > > >
> > > > And how would the mix be if some if any of these languages had to[/color][/color][/color]
hit[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > against a SQL Server database
> > > >
> > > > And would the differences be more or less different is you had to[/color][/color][/color]
use[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > ASP.NET?
> > > >
> > > > I guess, what I am asking is how would Assembly Language affect the
> > > overall
> > > > performance?
> > > >
> > > > And does anyone code in assembly language anyway??
> > > >
> > > > Thanks.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >[/color]
> >
> >[/color]
>
>[/color]

[Chris Taylor]

Re: C++ vs. C# vs. Assembly Language

After I posted I realized that might be what happened. I apologize for the
hastiness of my post!

Regards

Chris Taylor

"Mr.Tickle" <MrTickle@mrmen .com> wrote in message
news:eTBtdZXkDH A.3312@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> It was to the original poster, sorry, just got in the wrong reply thing.
>
>
>
> "Chris Taylor" <chris_taylor_z a@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OCt95WXkDH A.1656@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...[color=green]
> > Hi Mr Tickle,
> >
> > Maybe I misunderstand your response here, but I do not believe that I[/color][/color]
ever[color=blue][color=green]
> > stated A is better than B. If I did I assure you it was entirely
> > unintentional. I merely tried to give a brief overview comparison of
> > Assembly, IL, C#, managed and unmanaged C++. And clearly state in[/color]
> conclusion[color=green]
> > that the language chosen should be the language that suites the[/color][/color]
solution.[color=blue][color=green]
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Chris Taylor
> >
> > "Mr.Tickle" <MrTickle@mrmen .com> wrote in message
> > news:%234uiCEXk DHA.2456@TK2MSF TNGP09.phx.gbl. ..[color=darkred]
> > > As with anything, it will be dependant on the implementation.
> > >
> > > You gain alot more than just performance in a managed runtime.
> > >
> > > You cannot say A is better than B, you must put this into context and[/color][/color]
> have[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > identical setups and implementation to test a particular performance[/color][/color]
> area.[color=green][color=darkred]
> > >
> > > So I see these arguments as is unmanaged C++ better than C# as[/color][/color]
> pointless,[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > you need to be more specific.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Chris Taylor" <chris_taylor_z a@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:OncbrpVkDH A.2080@TK2MSFTN GP10.phx.gbl...
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Assembly language in the form of x86 assembly would seldom be used[/color][/color][/color]
to[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > develop a desktop or distributed type application, it is more suited[/color][/color]
> to[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > system level OS or embedded software for microcontroller s etc.[/color][/color][/color]
Though[color=blue][color=green]
> > well[color=darkred]
> > > > written Assembly would outperform most compiled languages, if the[/color][/color]
> system[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > is
> > > > relying on database access the database becomes the bottle neck so[/color][/color][/color]
the[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > Assembly code would not make much difference. Assembly would also[/color][/color]
> carry[color=green]
> > a[color=darkred]
> > > > sever overhead on development time due to the complexity and lack of
> > > object
> > > > oriented constructs.
> > > >
> > > > With regard to C# and unmanaged C++, well I think that this is[/color][/color][/color]
really[color=blue]
> a[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > case
> > > > of your preference in languages. However, in my opinion, C# will
> > > drastically
> > > > short-circuit your development time and help provide a more robust[/color]
> > system.[color=darkred]
> > > > The performance penalty incurred by running in a managed system is[/color][/color][/color]
not[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > that
> > > > significant inlight of the benefits gained from garbage collection,
> > > > structured exception handling etc. On the other hand managed C++[/color]
> > provides[color=darkred]
> > > > many of the benefits of C# in terms of development time and code[/color]
> > security[color=darkred]
> > > > while still enabling you to use the C++ libraries you are used to.[/color][/color]
> IMHO,[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > the
> > > > major catch with managed C++ is the fact that managed C++ is not
> > > verifiable
> > > > by the CLR therefore not all code is necessarily secure, while C#[/color][/color]
> allows[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > you
> > > > to make the decision as to whether you writing 100% safe and[/color][/color]
> verifiable[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > code
> > > > or you are prepared to forfeited verifiability and use unsafe code.
> > > >
> > > > If your reference to Assembly was actually a reference to the IL[/color][/color][/color]
code,[color=blue][color=green]
> > in[color=darkred]
> > > > that case I believe that it is quite feasible to generate a[/color][/color]
> application[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > using IL. IL would allow you to make use of features that are yet to[/color][/color]
> be[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > exposed by some of the higher level .NET languages such as C#, while[/color]
> > still[color=darkred]
> > > > giving you the benefits of object oriented code and structured[/color][/color]
> exception[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > handling etc. Once again however the IL is much more fine grained
> > > therefore
> > > > increasing the physical amount of code you will be typing and it is[/color][/color]
> less[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > readable than C# (though the IL is very readable!).
> > > >
> > > > In all cases, once there is a database involved, I believe that the
> > > > performance is largely dependant on you database and database[/color][/color][/color]
design.[color=blue][color=green]
> > And[color=darkred]
> > > > you should choose the language that most easily translates to the[/color]
> > business[color=darkred]
> > > > problem you are trying to solve.
> > > >
> > > > Hope this helps
> > > >
> > > > Chris Taylor
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "nospam" <n@ntspam.com > wrote in message
> > > > news:%23b8eu%23 UkDHA.976@tk2ms ftngp13.phx.gbl ...
> > > > > Just wondering,
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think the difference in performance would be between
> > > > >
> > > > > (1.) Compiled C#
> > > > > (2.) Compiled C++
> > > > > (3.) and Assembly Language
> > > > >
> > > > > And how would the mix be if some if any of these languages had to[/color][/color]
> hit[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > > against a SQL Server database
> > > > >
> > > > > And would the differences be more or less different is you had to[/color][/color]
> use[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > > ASP.NET?
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess, what I am asking is how would Assembly Language affect[/color][/color][/color]
the[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > overall
> > > > > performance?
> > > > >
> > > > > And does anyone code in assembly language anyway??
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >[/color]
> >
> >[/color]
>
>[/color]

[nospam]

Re: C++ vs. C# vs. Assembly Language

Ok, let's say there was this Mr. Perfect Coder who could type 1000 words per
minute and not make a single mistake.

What would the performance be of Assembly Language against C# and C++?
2 time faster, 4 times faster, 10 times faster?
Would it be fair to say that like 20% of the code make up 80% of the
execution time?


And since the Database would be a possible bottle neck in an ASP.NET
application, say for instance a shopping cart, could assembly language be
used in some form or another or somewhere to help the overall speed of the
web site in processing web based orders?

Thanks.






"Chris Taylor" <chris_taylor_z a@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OncbrpVkDH A.2080@TK2MSFTN GP10.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Hi,
>
> Assembly language in the form of x86 assembly would seldom be used to
> develop a desktop or distributed type application, it is more suited to
> system level OS or embedded software for microcontroller s etc. Though well
> written Assembly would outperform most compiled languages, if the system[/color]
is[color=blue]
> relying on database access the database becomes the bottle neck so the
> Assembly code would not make much difference. Assembly would also carry a
> sever overhead on development time due to the complexity and lack of[/color]
object[color=blue]
> oriented constructs.
>
> With regard to C# and unmanaged C++, well I think that this is really a[/color]
case[color=blue]
> of your preference in languages. However, in my opinion, C# will[/color]
drastically[color=blue]
> short-circuit your development time and help provide a more robust system.
> The performance penalty incurred by running in a managed system is not[/color]
that[color=blue]
> significant inlight of the benefits gained from garbage collection,
> structured exception handling etc. On the other hand managed C++ provides
> many of the benefits of C# in terms of development time and code security
> while still enabling you to use the C++ libraries you are used to. IMHO,[/color]
the[color=blue]
> major catch with managed C++ is the fact that managed C++ is not[/color]
verifiable[color=blue]
> by the CLR therefore not all code is necessarily secure, while C# allows[/color]
you[color=blue]
> to make the decision as to whether you writing 100% safe and verifiable[/color]
code[color=blue]
> or you are prepared to forfeited verifiability and use unsafe code.
>
> If your reference to Assembly was actually a reference to the IL code, in
> that case I believe that it is quite feasible to generate a application
> using IL. IL would allow you to make use of features that are yet to be
> exposed by some of the higher level .NET languages such as C#, while still
> giving you the benefits of object oriented code and structured exception
> handling etc. Once again however the IL is much more fine grained[/color]
therefore[color=blue]
> increasing the physical amount of code you will be typing and it is less
> readable than C# (though the IL is very readable!).
>
> In all cases, once there is a database involved, I believe that the
> performance is largely dependant on you database and database design. And
> you should choose the language that most easily translates to the business
> problem you are trying to solve.
>
> Hope this helps
>
> Chris Taylor
>
>
>
> "nospam" <n@ntspam.com > wrote in message
> news:%23b8eu%23 UkDHA.976@tk2ms ftngp13.phx.gbl ...[color=green]
> > Just wondering,
> >
> > What do you think the difference in performance would be between
> >
> > (1.) Compiled C#
> > (2.) Compiled C++
> > (3.) and Assembly Language
> >
> > And how would the mix be if some if any of these languages had to hit
> > against a SQL Server database
> >
> > And would the differences be more or less different is you had to use
> > ASP.NET?
> >
> > I guess, what I am asking is how would Assembly Language affect the[/color]
> overall[color=green]
> > performance?
> >
> > And does anyone code in assembly language anyway??
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> >[/color]
>
>[/color]

[Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\)]

Re: C++ vs. C# vs. Assembly Language

Assembly language would win, followed by compiled C++ for windows (COM),
followed by .NET. The C++ in .NET works a bit better with some algorythms,
while C# works better with some.

Performance is not the sole matrix in development, however. When you
consistently error on the side of performance, you often end up with a
solution that is less maintainable, which is generally more costly.

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

*************** *************** *************** *************** **********
Think Outside the Box!
*************** *************** *************** *************** **********
"nospam" <n@ntspam.com > wrote in message
news:%23b8eu%23 UkDHA.976@tk2ms ftngp13.phx.gbl ...[color=blue]
> Just wondering,
>
> What do you think the difference in performance would be between
>
> (1.) Compiled C#
> (2.) Compiled C++
> (3.) and Assembly Language
>
> And how would the mix be if some if any of these languages had to hit
> against a SQL Server database
>
> And would the differences be more or less different is you had to use
> ASP.NET?
>
> I guess, what I am asking is how would Assembly Language affect the[/color]
overall[color=blue]
> performance?
>
> And does anyone code in assembly language anyway??
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>[/color]

[Keith Patrick]

Re: C++ vs. C# vs. Assembly Language

I think it's also reasonable to imagine in the not-too-distant future that
unmanaged applications will not even be allowed to run under Windows except
in a compatibility sandbox of some kind, so ultimately, security wins out
over performance.