|
As much of the .NET Framework is probably written in C++ (certainly the earlier parts before they moved over to C#) you would expect a similar performance.
You would surely need to adjust for hardware to be a fair test. As C++ was developed to run on early Windows hardware, it was optimised for that platform. Likewise, C# was developed to run on modern Windows hardware and so is optimised for that platform.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare
Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
"As C++ was developed to run on early Windows hardware, it was optimised for that platform."
I question the validity of that statement, further it is not like C++ compilers haven't been continually developed since its inception.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
The .NET Framework consists of assemblies, which AFAIK can't contain native code, but they do make calls into the OS and native dll's.
Wout
|
|
|
|
|
They can be mixed, as for example C++/CLI ones often are, but AFAIK the framework doesn't use that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aren't they working on making C++ slower?
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not bored enough to look at the code in githubl but since one of his simplifications was cutting down to little more than reading/writing but I remember recently seeing a why is my C++ so slow question (on stackoverflow?) that came down to interleaved read/write's being bitten by something (IIRC in the standard) that prevented the compiler from optimizing its output very well.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
- Both languages can be compiled to machine code (either statically or dynamically with a JIT compiler)
- Both languages have similar language features
- C# has a more extensive library
I suspect that most of the variance would be traceable to the support libraries for each language.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
In raw speed C++ and .NET are not too different. In areas like SIMD support C++ used to have the edge, but now .NET 4.6 has support for that too. I still need to test it, so I'm not sure about the extents of the improvements. I'm surprised the SIMD support even made it into .NET after they have been ignoring requests for it for years. Maybe they were motivated somewhat because Mono had SIMD support for a long time already.
I remember .NET's inlining sometimes wasn't as aggressive as you'd want it to be. There were quite some reports about it, but MS deemed .NET to be fast enough and for a long time didn't bother with optimizing it further.
Wout
|
|
|
|
|
It's a start, but nowhere near enough. They've only put in some trivial SIMD. There is way too much missing. There are no permutes (worst of all nothing like PSHUFB), no saturating arithmetic, no SAD, no PHMINPOSUW, no multiply-high, no movmsk, no horizontal operations (ok they suck, but not nearly as hard as emulating them), nothing from the PCMP*STR* family. that's not really an exhaustive list, just what I can name off the top of my head. The subset of operations that is supported is even smaller than what autovectorizing compilers will use, and it's not even automatic..
It does have a divide that works on integers, which is actually worse than not having it because it tricks people into vectorizing their integer division containing loops, while no PDIVD exists.
|
|
|
|
|
Believe it or not, Microsoft is offering a Linux on its Azure cloud certification. And I'm sure there's a lineup to take that test
|
|
|
|
|
Like reading that Oracle is offering MS-SQL certifications..
Sudo remove all cloud-crap 
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
It's hard to see any evidence of Agile penetration at Google, Apple, or Facebook. Why? "Clap along if you feel like happiness is the truth"
|
|
|
|
|
Seminars entitled "How to win friends and influence people" tend to be attended by people who have neither friends nor influence. The same can be inferred for seminars entitled "How to be Agile".
So - the fact that the Microsoft and like companies are not at these probably means the inverse of what this author is concluding.
|
|
|
|
|
yeh, they are mutually exclusive
|
|
|
|
|
Creativity cannot come with agile development.
Life is a computer program and everyone is the programmer of his own life.
|
|
|
|
|
As previously announced, starting January 12, 2016 Microsoft will no longer provide security updates, technical support or hotfixes for .NET 4, 4.5, and 4.5.1 frameworks. But 3.5 is still supported?
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe because 3.5 is an integral component of Windows 7?
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I was thinking of something like that - either Weven or Wen.
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
IIRC 3.5sp0 is the integral OS component. 3.5sp1 is the supported version. My assumption's that it has to do with .net 2.0/3.0/3.5 collectively being .net generation 2 (and supported via in place upgrades from one to the next); with 3.5sp1 being the newest version of that family. 4.0/4.5/4.5.1/4.5.2/4.6 are all part of the 3rd .net generation, and are inplace upgrades from each other but install next to 3.5. (All of them install beside .net 1.1, if you've got something really old and crufty around. OTOH it's out of support so you really need to do something about it if you do.)
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Time to re-educate yourself in the mysterious ways of the 21st Century. .
|
|
|
|
|
... 
Patrice
“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
Oh dear. I'm guilty of this 
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare
Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
Don't trust anyone under thirty.
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: .
Yup. After reading that I've resolved to end all of my texts with punctuation. Anyone who gets offended by that is probably a sunshine I want to elephant with anyway. 
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
