Hello,
On Thu, 01 Oct 2009, Prem Kurian Philip wrote:
> From: Rahul Sundaram
>
> >Never say never. There has been quite a few demonstrations otherwise
> >available on the web. Feel free to look them up.
>
> Again, it comes down to the algorithm used. If the algorithm used in C is
> poor, then i
Hi,
--- On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Manvendra Bhangui
wrote:
| The flexibility of writing in C is that I can further reduce
| the syscalls. It gives me so many ways to manipulate my environment.
\--
Agreed.
---
| each syscall counts and I cannot
| explain the relief and the pride one feels
From: Rahul Sundaram
>> Ultimately, yes, it does come down to the number of instructions which are
>> executed by a platform for performing a single function. No one in their
>> right mind will argue that a program written in C wouldn't be faster than
>> the equivalent program written in any othe
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 2:37 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> I remember some time in the previous century yahoo! stated they were moving
> from 'legacy C programming' to php (with a lot of reasons why they did not
> choose perl) (since google had grabbed python, yahoo! could not consider
> python wi
On Wednesday 30 Sep 2009 3:36:09 pm Manvendra Bhangui wrote:
> > for that matter facebook handles more than that a day - so does youtube -
> > they
> > use python servers. I believe that they are getting bang for their buck.
> > As are google, yahoo, livejournal ... none of them use C. As some one
On Wednesday 30 Sep 2009 6:52:10 pm Prem Kurian Philip wrote:
> A compiler is required to create the machine code just once - while an
> interpreter will need to do this every time a script is done - unless you
> are using pre-compilation.
unless you change the code, python uses precompiled code -
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Manvendra Bhangui wrote:
> The spamassasin example was at Sify. At that point we were hit by spam and
> virus
> specifically targeted at Sify. And the servers were just not able to cope up
> with the load. One night of frantic coding and the spamassasin was replac
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Roshan Mathews wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Manvendra Bhangui
> wrote:
> > Yes.
> >
> That's quite interesting. Where was this, if you don't mind sharing
>
The spamassasin example was at Sify. At that point we were hit by spam and
virus
specifically
On 09/30/2009 06:52 PM, Prem Kurian Philip wrote:
> Ultimately, yes, it does come down to the number of instructions which are
> executed by a platform for performing a single function. No one in their
> right mind will argue that a program written in C wouldn't be faster than
> the equivalent pro
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Manvendra Bhangui wrote:
> Yes.
>
That's quite interesting. Where was this, if you don't mind sharing
that. I haven't written much C at work, and I guess I've never seen
much industrial C either then. Never would have expected to be
hovering right near assembly.
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 9:04 PM, Roshan Mathews wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Manvendra Bhangui
> wrote:
> > It does have. The flexibility of writing in C is that I can further
> reduce
> > the syscalls. It gives me so many ways to manipulate my environment. On a
> > server like a ma
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Manvendra Bhangui wrote:
> It does have. The flexibility of writing in C is that I can further reduce
> the syscalls. It gives me so many ways to manipulate my environment. On a
> server like a mail server which is processing few million mails a day,
> choice betwe
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote:
>
> While your intentions were honourable, your remark was about speed
> and efficiency and number of syscalls --- none of which has anything
> to do with reading/writing C!
>
It does have. The flexibility of writing in C is that I can
On 09/30/2009 06:52 PM, Prem Kurian Philip wrote:
From: steve
If you *really* want to go that way and do a 'relevant' one-to-one
comparison, you have to include the number of syscalls being made by
gcc>>when compiling your code to binary ...which is essentially what
the perl>>interpreter is d
I had told myself to leave when things get flamy, but this is hard to
walk away from, so just a few words. (Muhahahaha..)
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote:
> That is certainly true. There are indeed a large number of good
> programs written in C --- however, even those
From: steve
>>If you *really* want to go that way and do a 'relevant' one-to-one
>>comparison, you have to include the number of syscalls being made by
gcc >>when compiling your code to binary ...which is essentially what
the perl >>interpreter is doing for you for 'free'.
> the C programs does
Hello,
I apologise for offending people and igniting a flamewar.
However, I could not prevent myself from writing the following long
response. :-(
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, Manvendra Bhangui wrote:
> I am sorry about that. I honestly wanted to have some meaningful
> conversation and my point was only
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 4:11 PM, steve wrote:
> On 09/30/2009 04:04 PM, Manvendra Bhangui wrote:
>
>>
>> I never did speak about comparing number of syscalls to the
>> appropriateness
>> of a language.
>>
> ORLY ?
>
> >
> > How easy you find a language, depends on how you learnt it and how much
>
On 09/30/2009 04:04 PM, Manvendra Bhangui wrote:
I never did speak about comparing number of syscalls to the appropriateness
of a language.
ORLY ?
>
> How easy you find a language, depends on how you learnt it and how much
> passion you have for it. For me 'C' is like poetry. Just do an strace
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 3:53 PM, steve wrote:
>
> the C programs does the same job with 23 system calls
>> the perl program takes 160 system calls to just print the line "hello
>> world"
>> on screen
>>
>
> The intent of reply was to point out that ...
>
> the C programs does the same job with
On 09/30/2009 03:41 PM, Manvendra Bhangui wrote:
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 3:19 PM, steve wrote:
-- I won't ever defend my preference of language /solely/ by citing the
number of syscalls that a final executable needs at runtime.
It's a free country and that's your choice. It never will be m
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 3:19 PM, steve wrote:
> -- I won't ever defend my preference of language /solely/ by citing the
> number of syscalls that a final executable needs at runtime.
>
> It's a free country and that's your choice. It never will be mine. As long
as I can write something faster and
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves
wrote:
>
> for that matter facebook handles more than that a day - so does youtube -
> they
> use python servers. I believe that they are getting bang for their buck. As
> are google, yahoo, livejournal ... none of them use C. As some one
> remark
On 09/30/2009 02:59 PM, Manvendra Bhangui wrote:
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 2:50 PM, steve wrote:
Come dude ! ...that's a lousy argument and you know it. I, myself, prefer
python to C and C to perl ...but won't ever look at number of syscalls to
defend my preference.
I deal with sites that
On Wednesday 30 Sep 2009 2:59:43 pm Manvendra Bhangui wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 2:50 PM, steve wrote:
> > Come dude ! ...that's a lousy argument and you know it. I, myself, prefer
> > python to C and C to perl ...but won't ever look at number of syscalls to
> > defend my preference.
>
> I d
On Wednesday 30 Sep 2009 2:51:15 pm Manvendra Bhangui wrote:
> > Sure and writing in assembly language will probably use even few sys
> > calls. However I think the focus is on the wrong place in this argument.
> > Programmer's time is often more valuable than machine time.
> >
> > Agreed. However
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 2:50 PM, steve wrote:
>
> Come dude ! ...that's a lousy argument and you know it. I, myself, prefer
> python to C and C to perl ...but won't ever look at number of syscalls to
> defend my preference.
>
I deal with sites that do more than 3 million visitor per day. And I ha
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Rahul Sundaram
wrote:
>
> Sure and writing in assembly language will probably use even few sys
> calls. However I think the focus is on the wrong place in this argument.
> Programmer's time is often more valuable than machine time.
>
> Agreed. However it depends on
On 09/30/2009 02:29 PM, Manvendra Bhangui wrote:
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Manvendra Bhanguiwrote:
[...snip...]
e.g.
You can take the following 'C' program as an example. Write the same in
perl and enjoy the gunk that comes out.
int
main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp)
{
__wri
On 09/30/2009 02:29 PM, Manvendra Bhangui wrote:
> The equivalent program in perl would be
> #!/usr/bin/perl
> print "hello world\n";
>
> (just two lines instead of 5 lines in the 'C' program. But an strace on both
> show
> the C programs does the same job with 23 system calls
> the perl program
On Wednesday 30 Sep 2009 2:23:16 pm Manvendra Bhangui wrote:
> > On Wednesday 30 Sep 2009 2:12:18 pm Manvendra Bhangui wrote:
> > > You can take the following 'C' program as an example. Write the same in
> > > perl and enjoy the gunk that comes out.
> > >
> > > int
> > > main(int argc, char **argv,
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Manvendra Bhangui wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Kapil Hari Paranjape
> wrote:
>
>> C is neither easy to write nor easy to read!
>>
>> Quite the other way around. C is a very structured language. And there are
> almost no rules in 'C'. You can assign an
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves
wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 Sep 2009 2:12:18 pm Manvendra Bhangui wrote:
> > You can take the following 'C' program as an example. Write the same in
> > perl and enjoy the gunk that comes out.
> >
> > int
> > main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp)
On Wednesday 30 Sep 2009 2:12:18 pm Manvendra Bhangui wrote:
> You can take the following 'C' program as an example. Write the same in
> perl and enjoy the gunk that comes out.
>
> int
> main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp)
> {
> __write(1, "hello world\n", 12);
> }
what does this program do?
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote:
> C is neither easy to write nor easy to read!
>
> Quite the other way around. C is a very structured language. And there are
almost no rules in 'C'. You can assign an char to a integer, integer to a
char. Do a unstructured goto like in
Hello,
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, Girish Venkatachalam wrote:
> Of course, that is a good thing. The utility is powerful but I
> don't like it. It should have been way more simpler and friendlier
> and still powerful.
Write such a (simpler and user-friendly) utility or at least design
one!
People crit
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 5:24 AM, Girish Venkatachalam
wrote:
> You should ask Larry Wall, the author of perl and this patch utility
> why his brain works
> in such a complicated fashion.
>
"What is the sound of Perl? Is it not the sound of a wall that people
have stopped banging their heads agains
On 09/30/2009 11:27 AM, Girish Venkatachalam wrote:
[...snip...]
...so, you can also send multiple patchfiles to patch ...
Of course, that is a good thing. The utility is powerful but I don't like
it. It should have been way more simpler and friendlier and still powerful.
I'm sorry, I don't
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 10:38 AM, steve wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just a couple of points worth mentioning ...
Cool. I jumped in since I found your mail interesting.
> "--dry-run" switch. According to the man page:
> --dry-run
> Print the results of applying the patches without actually ch
Hi,
Just a couple of points worth mentioning ...
On 09/30/2009 05:24 AM, Girish Venkatachalam wrote:
Yesterday we saw diff in somewhat detail.
http://ae.iitm.ac.in/pipermail/ilugc/2009-September/051658.html
Today we are going to see the most important tool that every hacker should know:
[...sn
Yesterday we saw diff in somewhat detail.
http://ae.iitm.ac.in/pipermail/ilugc/2009-September/051658.html
Today we are going to see the most important tool that every hacker should know:
PATCH(1) PATCH(1)
NAME
patch - apply a d
41 matches
Mail list logo
