Re: size/speed/compiler - Was:another fpc RAD: MSEide

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: size/speed/compiler - Was:another fpc RAD: MSEide

L505
Okay so we have to now consider these points:
 1. interpreted languages can take up less memory if engineered right (says Florian)
 2. compilation and linking is a hassle - compared to shipping or uploading an interpreted
file
 3. speed - not a big deal. Hardware cheap enough.
 4. size - shipping an interpreted file usually smaller than exe/elf
 5. uploading - uploading a 30K script file on a 56k modem is easier than uploading a 5MB
binary

What advantage of compilation? There must be something.

I know Microsoft use to love compiling those EXE's because you couldn't see the source
code to the EXE's.
Is this the advantage of FPC? That we can hide our sources?

:-)


_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: size/speed/compiler - Was:another fpc RAD: MSEide

Florian Klämpfl
L505 wrote:

> Okay so we have to now consider these points:
>  1. interpreted languages can take up less memory if engineered right (says Florian)
>  2. compilation and linking is a hassle - compared to shipping or uploading an interpreted
> file
>  3. speed - not a big deal. Hardware cheap enough.
>  4. size - shipping an interpreted file usually smaller than exe/elf
>  5. uploading - uploading a 30K script file on a 56k modem is easier than uploading a 5MB
> binary
>
> What advantage of compilation? There must be something.

2. is true but: with a interpreted language your user has the hazzle to
get proper libraries for the interpreter, get the interpreter itself
etc. while with a compiler the developer who should know his tools has
hazzle.

3. isn't true for real interpreted languages, they are really slow, we
aren't talking about JIT like Java or .NET but things like Python, Perl,
PHP they are magnitudes slower than compiled languages. Don't take the
advantages of the Python (small memory footprint) and Java (JIT, i.e.
not that slow) and say a compiled program is bad because it is a) not
much faster than java and b) takes more memory than Python :) You
overlook then that a compiled program usually takes a) less memory than
a jrt and b) is magnitudes faster than Python.

4.+5. is also only partly true. What shall I do with a 30K script if I
miss the interpreter and runtime environment with 10-20 MB?

>
> I know Microsoft use to love compiling those EXE's because you couldn't see the source
> code to the EXE's.
> Is this the advantage of FPC? That we can hide our sources?
>
> :-)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
> http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
>

_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: size/speed/compiler - Was:another fpc RAD: MSEide

Michael Van Canneyt
In reply to this post by L505


On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, L505 wrote:

> Okay so we have to now consider these points:
>  1. interpreted languages can take up less memory if engineered right (says Florian)

So can compiled. It depends all on your RTL.

I used such languages.

The interpreted languages Florian talks about had less functionality for you
than the system unit of FPC offers. You could basically add strings and numbers,
and write them to file. That's it.

>  2. compilation and linking is a hassle - compared to shipping or uploading an interpreted
> file

And an interpreter, don't forget.

>  3. speed - not a big deal. Hardware cheap enough.

Speed definitely does matter for some apps: application servers,
database servers etc. So you can't generalize this.

>  4. size - shipping an interpreted file usually smaller than exe/elf

Not if you count the interpreter. Granted, you must download that only once.
This advantage can be had with compiled languages if you have a packages system.

>  5. uploading - uploading a 30K script file on a 56k modem is easier than uploading a 5MB
> binary

Not if you count the interpreter. Try installing Python, perl or PHP, plus
all of the 'packages' you need.

>
> What advantage of compilation? There must be something.

You know your code is syntactically correct. With interpreted, you don't.


Michael.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: size/speed/compiler - Was:another fpc RAD: MSEide

Jeff Miller

> >  3. speed - not a big deal. Hardware cheap enough.
>
> Speed definitely does matter for some apps: application servers,
> database servers etc. So you can't generalize this.

I'll have to agree with the second comment, not the first.

I use fpc for statistical simulation programs, many of which run
for 6 weeks or more (with different pieces of the simulation
running in parallel on 6-8 different PCs).  From my experience
with interpreted systems, these projects would take _years_
on the even fastest of those.

fpc is a great tool--much appreciated!

Jeff

[hidden email]


_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re[2]: size/speed/compiler - Was:another fpc RAD: MSEide

Пётр Косаревский
In reply to this post by L505
L>  3. speed - not a big deal. Hardware cheap enough.
If you ship programs, it's not you who decide whether hardware is
cheap.

If you do a small repetitive task several millions times, speed may
easily differ hundred times (for example: compiled piece of code fits into
cache, but interpreted doesn't; multiply by misc inefficiencies inside
cycle).

Uncommon data processing may easily require such repetitive tasks.

If all tasks were common, program development would suffer much.

_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: size/speed/compiler - Was:another fpc RAD: MSEide

L505
In reply to this post by Michael Van Canneyt

> >  3. speed - not a big deal. Hardware cheap enough.
>
> Speed definitely does matter for some apps: application servers,
> database servers etc. So you can't generalize this.

This is my view too.. purely playing devils advocate there.. :-)

>
> >  4. size - shipping an interpreted file usually smaller than exe/elf
>
> Not if you count the interpreter. Granted, you must download that only once.
> This advantage can be had with compiled languages if you have a packages system.
>
> >  5. uploading - uploading a 30K script file on a 56k modem is easier than uploading a
5MB
> > binary
>
> Not if you count the interpreter. Try installing Python, perl or PHP, plus
> all of the 'packages' you need.
>
> >
> > What advantage of compilation? There must be something.
>
> You know your code is syntactically correct. With interpreted, you don't.

I wonder why they haven't invented a pre-compiler that checks your script for you first..
well I think Zend IDE might do something like this.. but I've never tried Zend as I don't
do that much PHP programming lately.

_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re[2]: size/speed/compiler - Was:another fpc RAD: MSEide

L505
In reply to this post by Пётр Косаревский


>  3. speed - not a big deal. Hardware cheap enough.

> > If you ship programs, it's not you who decide whether hardware is
> > cheap.


I agree - some of my website visitors still use Win98, for example.. so can't say everyone
has a 2Ghz PC with windows XP on it. I don't like buying hardware every year.

_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: size/speed/compiler - Was:another fpc RAD: MSEide

Michael Van Canneyt
In reply to this post by Jeff Miller


On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Jeff Miller wrote:

>
>>>  3. speed - not a big deal. Hardware cheap enough.
>>
>> Speed definitely does matter for some apps: application servers,
>> database servers etc. So you can't generalize this.
>
> I'll have to agree with the second comment, not the first.
>
> I use fpc for statistical simulation programs, many of which run
> for 6 weeks or more (with different pieces of the simulation
> running in parallel on 6-8 different PCs).  From my experience
> with interpreted systems, these projects would take _years_
> on the even fastest of those.

Agreed.

Try DNA sequencing with an interpreted system. You'd probably
need a time which must be expressed using cosmic scales, something
like the age of the universe ;)

Michael.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal