Re: On C/C++ undefined behaviours (there is no "Eclipse")
On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 06:55:12 +0200, Walter Bright wrote: Russel Winder wrote: So the ability to improve performance of code by just waiting and buying new kit is over -- at least for now. If you do not turn your serial code into parallel code there will be no mechanism for improving performance of that code. A bit sad for inherently serial algorithms. I'm not sad at all. I enjoy optimizing code for performance, and working on optimizers. This just in: Compiler writer actually inherently serial algorithm! -- Simen
Re: On C/C++ undefined behaviours (there is no "Eclipse")
Russel Winder wrote: So the ability to improve performance of code by just waiting and buying new kit is over -- at least for now. If you do not turn your serial code into parallel code there will be no mechanism for improving performance of that code. A bit sad for inherently serial algorithms. I'm not sad at all. I enjoy optimizing code for performance, and working on optimizers.
Re: On C/C++ undefined behaviours (there is no "Eclipse")
Wed, 06 Oct 2010 14:26:18 +0100, Bruno Medeiros wrote: > Note: I wasn't talking about Don. Even though he mentioned those startup > issues, I don't think Don is a person who "downright refuse[s] to use > Eclipse because it loads too slow". > One thing is complaining, the other thing is actually deciding not to > use, and yes, there are some people in the later camp, people who don't > want to use an IDE if it doesn't load in less than X seconds (where X is > between 1-5 seconds). Roger that. I only wanted to point out that Eclipse isn't the only "professional" tool that takes "forever" to launch. For instance all three major Java IDEs (IDEA, Netbeans, Eclipse JDT) have very similar loading times. Those audio/video/cad/math tools also feel very bloated, but I'm sure there are good reasons for that. They're just packed with a huge set of features these days.
Re: On C/C++ undefined behaviours (there is no "Eclipse")
On 05/10/2010 18:59, retard wrote: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 15:49:59 +0100, Bruno Medeiros wrote: On 02/10/2010 15:13, retard wrote: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 14:53:04 +0100, Bruno Medeiros wrote: On 20/08/2010 22:37, Nick Sabalausky wrote: "retard"wrote in message news:i4mrss$ca...@digitalmars.com... Fri, 20 Aug 2010 19:04:41 +0200, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: What are these Java programs for the desktop that run fast? I haven't encountered any, but maybe that's just because I didn't try them all out. Eclipse takes at least 20 seconds to load on startup on my quad core, that's not very fast. On the other hand, CodeBlocks which is coded in C++ and has a few dozen plugins installed runs in an instant. Now that's a fair comparison! "Crysis runs so slowly but a hello world written in Go is SO fast. This must prove that Go is much faster than C+ +!" I think CodeBlocks is one of the most lightweight IDEs out there. Does it even have full semantic autocompletion? Eclipse, on the other hand, comes with almost everything you can imagine. If you turn off the syntax check, Eclipse works just as fast as any native application on a modern desktop. I've tried eclipse with the fancy stuff off, and it's still slower than C::B or PN2 for me. All these comments about Eclipse takes this time to load, or Eclipse is slow when used, etc., are really meaningless unless you tell us something about what actual plugins and features are installed and used. Unlike CodeBlocks which is "a free C++ IDE", Eclipse proper is the Eclipse Platform, which is a platform (duh) and doesn't do anything useful by itself. Particularly since there is not even a standard/single "Eclipse" download: http://www.eclipse.org/downloads/ , unlike Codeblocks. The days were JDT would be the main thing 95% of Eclipse users would use are long gone. So are you using JDT, CDT, Descent, something else? If JDT, do you have extra tools, like the J2EE Web Tools? (these add massive bloat) What about source control plugins, or plugins not provided by the Eclipse Foundation, etc? All of these are a wildcard that can affect performance. For example, I definitely note that sometimes my workspace chokes when I do certain SVN or file related operations (with Subclipse btw, not Subversive). I also noted, when Eclipse 3.6 came out, some sluggishness when working with JDT, even when just typing code (in this case it was very subtle, almost imperceptible, but I still felt it and it was quite annoying). I suspected not JDT, but Mylyn, so I uninstalled it, and now things are back to normal. (there might be a fix or workaround for that issue in Mylyn, but since I don't use it, I didn't bother) I would definitely be quite annoying if Eclipse was not responsive for the vast majority of coding tasks. As for startup time, I hardly care anything about that : http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/ Re_Eclipse_startup_time_Was_questions_on_PhanTango_merger_was_Merging_Tangobos_into_Tango_60160.html#N60346 (except when I'm doing PDE development, but that's a different thing) Back then the unhappy user was using a 1 GHz Pentium M notebook. I tried this again. Guess what, the latest Eclipse Helios (3.6.1) took 3.5 (!!!) seconds to start up the whole Java workspace, open few projects and fully initialize the editors etc for the most active project. Has the original complainer ever used Photoshop, CorelDraw, AutoCad, Maya/3DSMax, Maple/ MathCad/Mathematica, or some other Real World Programs (tm)? These are all fucking slow. That's how it is: If you need to get the job done, you must use slow programs. I'm sure that the people who downright refuse to use Eclipse because it loads too slow use some other program for media development. Maybe its MS Paint (or a Linux equivalent) because it loads so fast! Or maybe its a vi/emacs plugin for image manipulation or 3D modelling. ;) Well Don mentioned that he had used ALL of those programs and since no complaints about the slow loading times of those programs were mentioned, I assume all of them (the latest versions, of course) start in less than 3.5 seconds. I pondered this a bit and am now willing to buy Don's magic computer. I really do have need for a laptop that can launch those applications in less than 3.5 seconds. Note: I wasn't talking about Don. Even though he mentioned those startup issues, I don't think Don is a person who "downright refuse[s] to use Eclipse because it loads too slow". One thing is complaining, the other thing is actually deciding not to use, and yes, there are some people in the later camp, people who don't want to use an IDE if it doesn't load in less than X seconds (where X is between 1-5 seconds). -- Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
Re: On C/C++ undefined behaviours (there is no "Eclipse")
On 2010-10-05 17:04, Bruno Medeiros wrote: There was just something sloppy in Eclipse's startup code. Any Eclipse IDE configuration/distribution is likely never going to start fast, at least as fast as comparable native IDEs like MS Visual Studio. Still, I do think that 80 seconds sounds excessive, even for those computer specs. But it's likely a CDT issue, not an Eclipse one. Again, this distinction has to be considered, you can't just say "There was just something sloppy in Eclipse's startup code" or "Eclipse developers don't care about performance issues _at all_". The projects that come bundled in offical Eclipse distributions are not only separate projects (JDT, CDT, WTP, PDT, Mylyn, etc.), like I mentioned in my original post, but they are made by completely separate teams, most of them from different companies (even for the more popular Eclipse projects). I noticed quite a significant boost in the start up time for Eclipse when I updated to 3.6. I'm using Eclipse classic with the Descent plugin. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: On C/C++ undefined behaviours (there is no "Eclipse")
On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 17:59:26 + (UTC), retard wrote: I assume all of them (the latest versions, of course) start in less than 3.5 seconds. I pondered this a bit and am now willing to buy Don's magic computer. I really do have need for a laptop that can launch those applications in less than 3.5 seconds. Yes, my 2.40ghz i5 with 6gbs RAM takes about ten seconds to open Eclipse 64bits; I need to get one of those SSDs.
Re: On C/C++ undefined behaviours (there is no "Eclipse")
Am 02.10.2010 21:21, schrieb Don: Sadly, software seems to be bloating at a rate which is faster than Moore's law. That's Wirth's law. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirth%27s_law . Mafi
Re: On C/C++ undefined behaviours (there is no "Eclipse")
Tue, 05 Oct 2010 15:49:59 +0100, Bruno Medeiros wrote: > On 02/10/2010 15:13, retard wrote: >> Fri, 01 Oct 2010 14:53:04 +0100, Bruno Medeiros wrote: >> >>> On 20/08/2010 22:37, Nick Sabalausky wrote: "retard" wrote in message news:i4mrss$ca...@digitalmars.com... > Fri, 20 Aug 2010 19:04:41 +0200, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: > >> What are these Java programs for the desktop that run fast? I >> haven't encountered any, but maybe that's just because I didn't try >> them all out. Eclipse takes at least 20 seconds to load on startup >> on my quad core, that's not very fast. On the other hand, >> CodeBlocks which is coded in C++ and has a few dozen plugins >> installed runs in an instant. > > Now that's a fair comparison! "Crysis runs so slowly but a hello > world written in Go is SO fast. This must prove that Go is much > faster than C+ +!" > > I think CodeBlocks is one of the most lightweight IDEs out there. > Does it even have full semantic autocompletion? Eclipse, on the > other hand, comes with almost everything you can imagine. If you > turn off the syntax check, Eclipse works just as fast as any native > application on a modern desktop. I've tried eclipse with the fancy stuff off, and it's still slower than C::B or PN2 for me. >>> All these comments about Eclipse takes this time to load, or Eclipse >>> is slow when used, etc., are really meaningless unless you tell us >>> something about what actual plugins and features are installed and >>> used. >>> >>> Unlike CodeBlocks which is "a free C++ IDE", Eclipse proper is the >>> Eclipse Platform, which is a platform (duh) and doesn't do anything >>> useful by itself. Particularly since there is not even a >>> standard/single "Eclipse" download: http://www.eclipse.org/downloads/ >>> , unlike Codeblocks. The days were JDT would be the main thing 95% of >>> Eclipse users would use are long gone. >>> >>> So are you using JDT, CDT, Descent, something else? If JDT, do you >>> have extra tools, like the J2EE Web Tools? (these add massive bloat) >>> What about source control plugins, or plugins not provided by the >>> Eclipse Foundation, etc? All of these are a wildcard that can affect >>> performance. For example, I definitely note that sometimes my >>> workspace chokes when I do certain SVN or file related operations >>> (with Subclipse btw, not Subversive). >>> I also noted, when Eclipse 3.6 came out, some sluggishness when >>> working with JDT, even when just typing code (in this case it was very >>> subtle, almost imperceptible, but I still felt it and it was quite >>> annoying). I suspected not JDT, but Mylyn, so I uninstalled it, and >>> now things are back to normal. (there might be a fix or workaround for >>> that issue in Mylyn, but since I don't use it, I didn't bother) >>> >>> I would definitely be quite annoying if Eclipse was not responsive for >>> the vast majority of coding tasks. >>> >>> As for startup time, I hardly care anything about that : >>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/ >> Re_Eclipse_startup_time_Was_questions_on_PhanTango_merger_was_Merging_Tangobos_into_Tango_60160.html#N60346 >>> (except when I'm doing PDE development, but that's a different thing) >> >> Back then the unhappy user was using a 1 GHz Pentium M notebook. I >> tried this again. Guess what, the latest Eclipse Helios (3.6.1) took >> 3.5 (!!!) seconds to start up the whole Java workspace, open few >> projects and fully initialize the editors etc for the most active >> project. Has the original complainer ever used Photoshop, CorelDraw, >> AutoCad, Maya/3DSMax, Maple/ MathCad/Mathematica, or some other Real >> World Programs (tm)? These are all fucking slow. That's how it is: If >> you need to get the job done, you must use slow programs. >> >> > I'm sure that the people who downright refuse to use Eclipse because it > loads too slow use some other program for media development. Maybe its > MS Paint (or a Linux equivalent) because it loads so fast! Or maybe its > a vi/emacs plugin for image manipulation or 3D modelling. ;) Well Don mentioned that he had used ALL of those programs and since no complaints about the slow loading times of those programs were mentioned, I assume all of them (the latest versions, of course) start in less than 3.5 seconds. I pondered this a bit and am now willing to buy Don's magic computer. I really do have need for a laptop that can launch those applications in less than 3.5 seconds.
Re: On C/C++ undefined behaviours (there is no "Eclipse")
On 02/10/2010 17:21, Don wrote: retard wrote: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 14:53:04 +0100, Bruno Medeiros wrote: On 20/08/2010 22:37, Nick Sabalausky wrote: "retard" wrote in message news:i4mrss$ca...@digitalmars.com... Fri, 20 Aug 2010 19:04:41 +0200, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: What are these Java programs for the desktop that run fast? I haven't encountered any, but maybe that's just because I didn't try them all out. Eclipse takes at least 20 seconds to load on startup on my quad core, that's not very fast. On the other hand, CodeBlocks which is coded in C++ and has a few dozen plugins installed runs in an instant. Now that's a fair comparison! "Crysis runs so slowly but a hello world written in Go is SO fast. This must prove that Go is much faster than C+ +!" I think CodeBlocks is one of the most lightweight IDEs out there. Does it even have full semantic autocompletion? Eclipse, on the other hand, comes with almost everything you can imagine. If you turn off the syntax check, Eclipse works just as fast as any native application on a modern desktop. I've tried eclipse with the fancy stuff off, and it's still slower than C::B or PN2 for me. All these comments about Eclipse takes this time to load, or Eclipse is slow when used, etc., are really meaningless unless you tell us something about what actual plugins and features are installed and used. Unlike CodeBlocks which is "a free C++ IDE", Eclipse proper is the Eclipse Platform, which is a platform (duh) and doesn't do anything useful by itself. Particularly since there is not even a standard/single "Eclipse" download: http://www.eclipse.org/downloads/ , unlike Codeblocks. The days were JDT would be the main thing 95% of Eclipse users would use are long gone. So are you using JDT, CDT, Descent, something else? If JDT, do you have extra tools, like the J2EE Web Tools? (these add massive bloat) What about source control plugins, or plugins not provided by the Eclipse Foundation, etc? All of these are a wildcard that can affect performance. For example, I definitely note that sometimes my workspace chokes when I do certain SVN or file related operations (with Subclipse btw, not Subversive). I also noted, when Eclipse 3.6 came out, some sluggishness when working with JDT, even when just typing code (in this case it was very subtle, almost imperceptible, but I still felt it and it was quite annoying). I suspected not JDT, but Mylyn, so I uninstalled it, and now things are back to normal. (there might be a fix or workaround for that issue in Mylyn, but since I don't use it, I didn't bother) I would definitely be quite annoying if Eclipse was not responsive for the vast majority of coding tasks. As for startup time, I hardly care anything about that : http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/ Re_Eclipse_startup_time_Was_questions_on_PhanTango_merger_was_Merging_Tangobos_into_Tango_60160.html#N60346 (except when I'm doing PDE development, but that's a different thing) Back then the unhappy user was using a 1 GHz Pentium M notebook. I tried this again. Guess what, the latest Eclipse Helios (3.6.1) took 3.5 (!!!) seconds to start up the whole Java workspace, open few projects and fully initialize the editors etc for the most active project. That's good news. Sounds as though they've fixed the startup performance bug. Not necessarily. Again, you need to consider what is installed and loading in Eclipse. In retard's scenario he was loading a Java workspace (JDT) whereas your original post was a C++ one (with CDT, I'm guessing). Even disregarding the PC specs, it's comparing apples to oranges. Eclipse is not like Firefox where the main platform is 90% of the code/functionality, and the plugins are only like 5-10%. Has the original complainer ever used Photoshop, CorelDraw, AutoCad, Maya/3DSMax, Maple/ MathCad/Mathematica, or some other Real World Programs (tm)? These are all fucking slow. That's how it is: If you need to get the job done, you must use slow programs. That original poster was me. Yes, I've used all of those programs (though not a recent version of CorelDraw). The startup time was 80 seconds, on the most most minimal standard Eclipse setup I could find. MSVC was 3 seconds on the same system. I had expected the times to be roughly comparable. There was just something sloppy in Eclipse's startup code. Any Eclipse IDE configuration/distribution is likely never going to start fast, at least as fast as comparable native IDEs like MS Visual Studio. Still, I do think that 80 seconds sounds excessive, even for those computer specs. But it's likely a CDT issue, not an Eclipse one. Again, this distinction has to be considered, you can't just say "There was just something sloppy in Eclipse's startup code" or "Eclipse developers don't care about performance issues _at all_". The projects that come bundled in offical Eclipse distributions are not only separate projects (JDT, CDT, WTP, PDT, Mylyn, etc.), like I mention
Re: On C/C++ undefined behaviours (there is no "Eclipse")
On 02/10/2010 15:13, retard wrote: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 14:53:04 +0100, Bruno Medeiros wrote: On 20/08/2010 22:37, Nick Sabalausky wrote: "retard" wrote in message news:i4mrss$ca...@digitalmars.com... Fri, 20 Aug 2010 19:04:41 +0200, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: What are these Java programs for the desktop that run fast? I haven't encountered any, but maybe that's just because I didn't try them all out. Eclipse takes at least 20 seconds to load on startup on my quad core, that's not very fast. On the other hand, CodeBlocks which is coded in C++ and has a few dozen plugins installed runs in an instant. Now that's a fair comparison! "Crysis runs so slowly but a hello world written in Go is SO fast. This must prove that Go is much faster than C+ +!" I think CodeBlocks is one of the most lightweight IDEs out there. Does it even have full semantic autocompletion? Eclipse, on the other hand, comes with almost everything you can imagine. If you turn off the syntax check, Eclipse works just as fast as any native application on a modern desktop. I've tried eclipse with the fancy stuff off, and it's still slower than C::B or PN2 for me. All these comments about Eclipse takes this time to load, or Eclipse is slow when used, etc., are really meaningless unless you tell us something about what actual plugins and features are installed and used. Unlike CodeBlocks which is "a free C++ IDE", Eclipse proper is the Eclipse Platform, which is a platform (duh) and doesn't do anything useful by itself. Particularly since there is not even a standard/single "Eclipse" download: http://www.eclipse.org/downloads/ , unlike Codeblocks. The days were JDT would be the main thing 95% of Eclipse users would use are long gone. So are you using JDT, CDT, Descent, something else? If JDT, do you have extra tools, like the J2EE Web Tools? (these add massive bloat) What about source control plugins, or plugins not provided by the Eclipse Foundation, etc? All of these are a wildcard that can affect performance. For example, I definitely note that sometimes my workspace chokes when I do certain SVN or file related operations (with Subclipse btw, not Subversive). I also noted, when Eclipse 3.6 came out, some sluggishness when working with JDT, even when just typing code (in this case it was very subtle, almost imperceptible, but I still felt it and it was quite annoying). I suspected not JDT, but Mylyn, so I uninstalled it, and now things are back to normal. (there might be a fix or workaround for that issue in Mylyn, but since I don't use it, I didn't bother) I would definitely be quite annoying if Eclipse was not responsive for the vast majority of coding tasks. As for startup time, I hardly care anything about that : http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/ Re_Eclipse_startup_time_Was_questions_on_PhanTango_merger_was_Merging_Tangobos_into_Tango_60160.html#N60346 (except when I'm doing PDE development, but that's a different thing) Back then the unhappy user was using a 1 GHz Pentium M notebook. I tried this again. Guess what, the latest Eclipse Helios (3.6.1) took 3.5 (!!!) seconds to start up the whole Java workspace, open few projects and fully initialize the editors etc for the most active project. Has the original complainer ever used Photoshop, CorelDraw, AutoCad, Maya/3DSMax, Maple/ MathCad/Mathematica, or some other Real World Programs (tm)? These are all fucking slow. That's how it is: If you need to get the job done, you must use slow programs. I'm sure that the people who downright refuse to use Eclipse because it loads too slow use some other program for media development. Maybe its MS Paint (or a Linux equivalent) because it loads so fast! Or maybe its a vi/emacs plugin for image manipulation or 3D modelling. ;) -- Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
Re: On C/C++ undefined behaviours (there is no "Eclipse")
On 3/10/2010 8:21 PM, Russel Winder wrote: On Sat, 2010-10-02 at 21:21 +0200, Don wrote: retard wrote: [ . . . ] I meant that computers become more efficient. I've upgraded my system two times since this discussion last appeared here. If you wait 18 months, the 20 seconds becomes 10 seconds, in 36 months 5 seconds. It's the Moore's law, you know. Sadly, software seems to be bloating at a rate which is faster than Moore's law. Part of my original post noted that it was much slower than my old 1MHz Commodore 64 took to boot my development environment from a cassette tape! So I still take it as a good sign that the rate of bloating is slower than Moore's law. Faster processor speeds in the period 1950--2005 was not actually anything to do with Moore's Law per se -- Moore's Law was about the number of transistors per chip, not the speed of operation of those transistors. Since around 2005 processor speeds have stopped increasing due to inability to deal with the heat generation. Instead Moore's Law (which for the moment still applies) is leading to more and more cores per chip all running at the same speed as previously -- around 2GHz. So the ability to improve performance of code by just waiting and buying new kit is over -- at least for now. If you do not turn your serial code into parallel code there will be no mechanism for improving performance of that code. A bit sad for inherently serial algorithms. And yes, my observation is that is is not often to be able to buy new kit (aka PC) with more MIPS and chips (CPUs) that runs the O/S and applications faster than the veteran unit, perhaps apart from graphics acceleration. Why is it that Moores Law does not seem to make for better user experience as time goes by? Conspiracy theory: Seems to me that there is a middle man on the take all the time. :-) Cheers Justin Johansson
Re: On C/C++ undefined behaviours (there is no "Eclipse")
On Sat, 2010-10-02 at 21:21 +0200, Don wrote: > retard wrote: [ . . . ] > > I meant that computers become more efficient. I've upgraded my system two > > times since this discussion last appeared here. If you wait 18 months, the > > 20 seconds becomes 10 seconds, in 36 months 5 seconds. It's the Moore's > > law, you know. > > Sadly, software seems to be bloating at a rate which is faster than > Moore's law. Part of my original post noted that it was much slower than > my old 1MHz Commodore 64 took to boot my development environment from a > cassette tape! So I still take it as a good sign that the rate of > bloating is slower than Moore's law. Faster processor speeds in the period 1950--2005 was not actually anything to do with Moore's Law per se -- Moore's Law was about the number of transistors per chip, not the speed of operation of those transistors. Since around 2005 processor speeds have stopped increasing due to inability to deal with the heat generation. Instead Moore's Law (which for the moment still applies) is leading to more and more cores per chip all running at the same speed as previously -- around 2GHz. So the ability to improve performance of code by just waiting and buying new kit is over -- at least for now. If you do not turn your serial code into parallel code there will be no mechanism for improving performance of that code. A bit sad for inherently serial algorithms. -- Russel. = Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@russel.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: On C/C++ undefined behaviours (there is no "Eclipse")
Sat, 02 Oct 2010 21:21:23 +0200, Don wrote: > retard wrote: >> Sat, 02 Oct 2010 18:21:53 +0200, Don wrote: >>> There was just something sloppy in Eclipse's startup code. >> >> I don't recommend running Eclipse on any machine with less than 1 GB of >> RAM. It's a well known fact that Java programs require twice as much >> memory due to garbage collection. Also Eclipse is a rather complex >> framework. Luckily *all* systems, even the cheapest $100 netbooks have >> 1 GB of RAM! > > My laptop had 1GB, so I'm not sure we can blame that. Eclipse was > perfectly fine once it had loaded. It was only the startup which was > slow. Another thing that comes to mind is that the file system might have been badly fragmented and/or Eclipse loaded a boatload of dependencies at startup from a slow 2.5" disk. Many laptops have slow 5400 rpm disks with really bad I/O performance. For example my old IBM T23 or something like that managed to read files @ 8 MB/s from the C: drive. That's just terrible compared to modern SATA2 hard drives with 64 MB of cache (SSDs are even better -- a 64 GB 2.5" SSD drive costs about as much as a 3.5" SATA2 1.5 TB spinning disk). I can easily read data @ 90 MB/s, even when the file system is quite full. If you need to read 120 MB of data (size of the latest eclipse), there is simply no way to read it faster than in 15 seconds using the old disk.
Re: On C/C++ undefined behaviours (there is no "Eclipse")
retard wrote: Sat, 02 Oct 2010 18:21:53 +0200, Don wrote: retard wrote: Back then the unhappy user was using a 1 GHz Pentium M notebook. I tried this again. Guess what, the latest Eclipse Helios (3.6.1) took 3.5 (!!!) seconds to start up the whole Java workspace, open few projects and fully initialize the editors etc for the most active project. That's good news. Sounds as though they've fixed the startup performance bug. I meant that computers become more efficient. I've upgraded my system two times since this discussion last appeared here. If you wait 18 months, the 20 seconds becomes 10 seconds, in 36 months 5 seconds. It's the Moore's law, you know. Sadly, software seems to be bloating at a rate which is faster than Moore's law. Part of my original post noted that it was much slower than my old 1MHz Commodore 64 took to boot my development environment from a cassette tape! So I still take it as a good sign that the rate of bloating is slower than Moore's law. Has the original complainer ever used Photoshop, CorelDraw, AutoCad, Maya/3DSMax, Maple/ MathCad/Mathematica, or some other Real World Programs (tm)? These are all fucking slow. That's how it is: If you need to get the job done, you must use slow programs. That original poster was me. Yes, I've used all of those programs (though not a recent version of CorelDraw). The startup time was 80 seconds, on the most most minimal standard Eclipse setup I could find. MSVC was 3 seconds on the same system. I had expected the times to be roughly comparable. How long does it take to start up all those programs on your notebook? 15 minutes? I don't even consider Eclipse bloated compared to *these* applications. Don't remember. I too have upgraded since then. I can say, though, that Eclipse was the worst I experienced (the others you mentioned were I think more in the 30 second range). Mind you, I never ran Labview on it. Labview would probably have been worse. There was just something sloppy in Eclipse's startup code. I don't recommend running Eclipse on any machine with less than 1 GB of RAM. It's a well known fact that Java programs require twice as much memory due to garbage collection. Also Eclipse is a rather complex framework. Luckily *all* systems, even the cheapest $100 netbooks have 1 GB of RAM! My laptop had 1GB, so I'm not sure we can blame that. Eclipse was perfectly fine once it had loaded. It was only the startup which was slow.
Re: On C/C++ undefined behaviours (there is no "Eclipse")
Sat, 02 Oct 2010 18:21:53 +0200, Don wrote: > retard wrote: >> Back then the unhappy user was using a 1 GHz Pentium M notebook. I >> tried this again. Guess what, the latest Eclipse Helios (3.6.1) took >> 3.5 (!!!) seconds to start up the whole Java workspace, open few >> projects and fully initialize the editors etc for the most active >> project. > > That's good news. Sounds as though they've fixed the startup performance > bug. I meant that computers become more efficient. I've upgraded my system two times since this discussion last appeared here. If you wait 18 months, the 20 seconds becomes 10 seconds, in 36 months 5 seconds. It's the Moore's law, you know. > > Has the original >> complainer ever used Photoshop, CorelDraw, AutoCad, Maya/3DSMax, Maple/ >> MathCad/Mathematica, or some other Real World Programs (tm)? These are >> all fucking slow. That's how it is: If you need to get the job done, >> you must use slow programs. > > That original poster was me. Yes, I've used all of those programs > (though not a recent version of CorelDraw). The startup time was 80 > seconds, on the most most minimal standard Eclipse setup I could find. > MSVC was 3 seconds on the same system. I had expected the times to be > roughly comparable. How long does it take to start up all those programs on your notebook? 15 minutes? I don't even consider Eclipse bloated compared to *these* applications. > > There was just something sloppy in Eclipse's startup code. I don't recommend running Eclipse on any machine with less than 1 GB of RAM. It's a well known fact that Java programs require twice as much memory due to garbage collection. Also Eclipse is a rather complex framework. Luckily *all* systems, even the cheapest $100 netbooks have 1 GB of RAM!
Re: On C/C++ undefined behaviours (there is no "Eclipse")
retard wrote: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 14:53:04 +0100, Bruno Medeiros wrote: On 20/08/2010 22:37, Nick Sabalausky wrote: "retard" wrote in message news:i4mrss$ca...@digitalmars.com... Fri, 20 Aug 2010 19:04:41 +0200, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: What are these Java programs for the desktop that run fast? I haven't encountered any, but maybe that's just because I didn't try them all out. Eclipse takes at least 20 seconds to load on startup on my quad core, that's not very fast. On the other hand, CodeBlocks which is coded in C++ and has a few dozen plugins installed runs in an instant. Now that's a fair comparison! "Crysis runs so slowly but a hello world written in Go is SO fast. This must prove that Go is much faster than C+ +!" I think CodeBlocks is one of the most lightweight IDEs out there. Does it even have full semantic autocompletion? Eclipse, on the other hand, comes with almost everything you can imagine. If you turn off the syntax check, Eclipse works just as fast as any native application on a modern desktop. I've tried eclipse with the fancy stuff off, and it's still slower than C::B or PN2 for me. All these comments about Eclipse takes this time to load, or Eclipse is slow when used, etc., are really meaningless unless you tell us something about what actual plugins and features are installed and used. Unlike CodeBlocks which is "a free C++ IDE", Eclipse proper is the Eclipse Platform, which is a platform (duh) and doesn't do anything useful by itself. Particularly since there is not even a standard/single "Eclipse" download: http://www.eclipse.org/downloads/ , unlike Codeblocks. The days were JDT would be the main thing 95% of Eclipse users would use are long gone. So are you using JDT, CDT, Descent, something else? If JDT, do you have extra tools, like the J2EE Web Tools? (these add massive bloat) What about source control plugins, or plugins not provided by the Eclipse Foundation, etc? All of these are a wildcard that can affect performance. For example, I definitely note that sometimes my workspace chokes when I do certain SVN or file related operations (with Subclipse btw, not Subversive). I also noted, when Eclipse 3.6 came out, some sluggishness when working with JDT, even when just typing code (in this case it was very subtle, almost imperceptible, but I still felt it and it was quite annoying). I suspected not JDT, but Mylyn, so I uninstalled it, and now things are back to normal. (there might be a fix or workaround for that issue in Mylyn, but since I don't use it, I didn't bother) I would definitely be quite annoying if Eclipse was not responsive for the vast majority of coding tasks. As for startup time, I hardly care anything about that : http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/ Re_Eclipse_startup_time_Was_questions_on_PhanTango_merger_was_Merging_Tangobos_into_Tango_60160.html#N60346 (except when I'm doing PDE development, but that's a different thing) Back then the unhappy user was using a 1 GHz Pentium M notebook. I tried this again. Guess what, the latest Eclipse Helios (3.6.1) took 3.5 (!!!) seconds to start up the whole Java workspace, open few projects and fully initialize the editors etc for the most active project. That's good news. Sounds as though they've fixed the startup performance bug. Has the original complainer ever used Photoshop, CorelDraw, AutoCad, Maya/3DSMax, Maple/ MathCad/Mathematica, or some other Real World Programs (tm)? These are all fucking slow. That's how it is: If you need to get the job done, you must use slow programs. That original poster was me. Yes, I've used all of those programs (though not a recent version of CorelDraw). The startup time was 80 seconds, on the most most minimal standard Eclipse setup I could find. MSVC was 3 seconds on the same system. I had expected the times to be roughly comparable. There was just something sloppy in Eclipse's startup code.
Re: On C/C++ undefined behaviours (there is no "Eclipse")
Fri, 01 Oct 2010 14:53:04 +0100, Bruno Medeiros wrote: > On 20/08/2010 22:37, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> "retard" wrote in message >> news:i4mrss$ca...@digitalmars.com... >>> Fri, 20 Aug 2010 19:04:41 +0200, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: >>> What are these Java programs for the desktop that run fast? I haven't encountered any, but maybe that's just because I didn't try them all out. Eclipse takes at least 20 seconds to load on startup on my quad core, that's not very fast. On the other hand, CodeBlocks which is coded in C++ and has a few dozen plugins installed runs in an instant. >>> >>> Now that's a fair comparison! "Crysis runs so slowly but a hello world >>> written in Go is SO fast. This must prove that Go is much faster than >>> C+ +!" >>> >>> I think CodeBlocks is one of the most lightweight IDEs out there. Does >>> it even have full semantic autocompletion? Eclipse, on the other hand, >>> comes with almost everything you can imagine. If you turn off the >>> syntax check, Eclipse works just as fast as any native application on >>> a modern desktop. >> >> I've tried eclipse with the fancy stuff off, and it's still slower than >> C::B or PN2 for me. >> >> >> > All these comments about Eclipse takes this time to load, or Eclipse is > slow when used, etc., are really meaningless unless you tell us > something about what actual plugins and features are installed and used. > > Unlike CodeBlocks which is "a free C++ IDE", Eclipse proper is the > Eclipse Platform, which is a platform (duh) and doesn't do anything > useful by itself. Particularly since there is not even a standard/single > "Eclipse" download: http://www.eclipse.org/downloads/ , unlike > Codeblocks. The days were JDT would be the main thing 95% of Eclipse > users would use are long gone. > > So are you using JDT, CDT, Descent, something else? If JDT, do you have > extra tools, like the J2EE Web Tools? (these add massive bloat) What > about source control plugins, or plugins not provided by the Eclipse > Foundation, etc? All of these are a wildcard that can affect > performance. For example, I definitely note that sometimes my workspace > chokes when I do certain SVN or file related operations (with Subclipse > btw, not Subversive). > I also noted, when Eclipse 3.6 came out, some sluggishness when working > with JDT, even when just typing code (in this case it was very subtle, > almost imperceptible, but I still felt it and it was quite annoying). I > suspected not JDT, but Mylyn, so I uninstalled it, and now things are > back to normal. (there might be a fix or workaround for that issue in > Mylyn, but since I don't use it, I didn't bother) > > I would definitely be quite annoying if Eclipse was not responsive for > the vast majority of coding tasks. > > As for startup time, I hardly care anything about that : > http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/ Re_Eclipse_startup_time_Was_questions_on_PhanTango_merger_was_Merging_Tangobos_into_Tango_60160.html#N60346 > (except when I'm doing PDE development, but that's a different thing) Back then the unhappy user was using a 1 GHz Pentium M notebook. I tried this again. Guess what, the latest Eclipse Helios (3.6.1) took 3.5 (!!!) seconds to start up the whole Java workspace, open few projects and fully initialize the editors etc for the most active project. Has the original complainer ever used Photoshop, CorelDraw, AutoCad, Maya/3DSMax, Maple/ MathCad/Mathematica, or some other Real World Programs (tm)? These are all fucking slow. That's how it is: If you need to get the job done, you must use slow programs. My hardware specs: Core i7, 24 GB of DDR3 RAM, Sun Java 7, x86-64 Linux 2.6 (a middle range home PC with some extra memory, that is)
Re: On C/C++ undefined behaviours (there is no "Eclipse")
On 20/08/2010 22:37, Nick Sabalausky wrote: "retard" wrote in message news:i4mrss$ca...@digitalmars.com... Fri, 20 Aug 2010 19:04:41 +0200, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: What are these Java programs for the desktop that run fast? I haven't encountered any, but maybe that's just because I didn't try them all out. Eclipse takes at least 20 seconds to load on startup on my quad core, that's not very fast. On the other hand, CodeBlocks which is coded in C++ and has a few dozen plugins installed runs in an instant. Now that's a fair comparison! "Crysis runs so slowly but a hello world written in Go is SO fast. This must prove that Go is much faster than C+ +!" I think CodeBlocks is one of the most lightweight IDEs out there. Does it even have full semantic autocompletion? Eclipse, on the other hand, comes with almost everything you can imagine. If you turn off the syntax check, Eclipse works just as fast as any native application on a modern desktop. I've tried eclipse with the fancy stuff off, and it's still slower than C::B or PN2 for me. All these comments about Eclipse takes this time to load, or Eclipse is slow when used, etc., are really meaningless unless you tell us something about what actual plugins and features are installed and used. Unlike CodeBlocks which is "a free C++ IDE", Eclipse proper is the Eclipse Platform, which is a platform (duh) and doesn't do anything useful by itself. Particularly since there is not even a standard/single "Eclipse" download: http://www.eclipse.org/downloads/ , unlike Codeblocks. The days were JDT would be the main thing 95% of Eclipse users would use are long gone. So are you using JDT, CDT, Descent, something else? If JDT, do you have extra tools, like the J2EE Web Tools? (these add massive bloat) What about source control plugins, or plugins not provided by the Eclipse Foundation, etc? All of these are a wildcard that can affect performance. For example, I definitely note that sometimes my workspace chokes when I do certain SVN or file related operations (with Subclipse btw, not Subversive). I also noted, when Eclipse 3.6 came out, some sluggishness when working with JDT, even when just typing code (in this case it was very subtle, almost imperceptible, but I still felt it and it was quite annoying). I suspected not JDT, but Mylyn, so I uninstalled it, and now things are back to normal. (there might be a fix or workaround for that issue in Mylyn, but since I don't use it, I didn't bother) I would definitely be quite annoying if Eclipse was not responsive for the vast majority of coding tasks. As for startup time, I hardly care anything about that : http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Re_Eclipse_startup_time_Was_questions_on_PhanTango_merger_was_Merging_Tangobos_into_Tango_60160.html#N60346 (except when I'm doing PDE development, but that's a different thing) -- Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
