Zhaojun, If you want to discuss the performance, can you please start the topic on alt.comp.lang.c or something like that? Just let me know the thread and I will be happy to join the discussion. Your result is interesting in that cygwin/c can beat vc. As generally the binary compiled with cygwin are slower. By optimizing the compiler, did you optimize the code size or the speed? In modern CPU, code size can affect the CPU cache. For my personal tastes (again, chuckle), I normally prefer the compiler from the OS vendors. Can you please publish the result so we can share it and discuss the truth about your benchmark? I think the result should be made to many ACM/IEEE papers as it is really encouraging for GNU peopel. I still don't see how you can say benchmark is easy. I know the C99 has many new syntax that eventually avoid a few problems mentioned in the famous book "C Traps and Pitfalls". I cannot wait to use C99 myself. But for now, I rather stay with C++, Java, or C#.
As for the fonts, if the rendering engine of ClearType was "ported" to Linux, is it legally done? As a professional software engineer, I do not think infringing a patent is even ethical. I saw some screenshots from some of my friends about the "ClearType" rendering on the Linux. It is "close" only if you don't care about the details. And I remember one has to patch the X-Windows library to take the advantage because of the patent issue. I wish someday Linux can compete with Windows and Mac OSX on all front with their true innovation. It is again my personal taste to prefer fonts on Windows than Linux. But I am sure many people have the same feeling. And I also know some people don't care about fonts at all. So I won't argue any more about the compiler issue. If you want to use the mingw compiled Vim, please go ahead with cream project. Or you have a choice to use my compilation. More options are sure better for the users. On 4/22/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Zhichao Hong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 写于 2007-04-22 22:55:47: > If the topic is about fonts, I would like to make some comment. The > Bitstream Vera Sans Mono looks ugly with subpixel hints. You can say > the same thing about Consolas. But if the hinting are turned on and > compared on the Windows, Consolas beats the BVSM easily. Just try to > compare the zero character. There is only one size in BVSM looks sort > of O.K.. It might be my personal taste again. But I think one thing > Microsoft did well in the Vista is about fonts. I use YaHei for > Chinese and Segoe UI or calibri for English. I don't read Chinese a > lot (only some websites). So Chinese fonts poor rendering in Linux > don't bother me a lot. > > In Linux, I use blackblox or windowsmaker. The KDE or GNOME don't > attract me in general. I know about tuning the fonts in Ubuntu and > RedHat. I still think in Linux the Terminus bitmap font beats every > true type fonts. First I must say your work is welcome and your work might be useful for many people. However, the font-rendering engine has nothing to do with the fonts-itself. I agree that Microsoft's ClearType is better but Linux is now closing the gap. If you like Microsoft's "ClearType" to do the sub-pixel hinting, then just install the "ClearType", there're plenty of topics discussing this on ubuntu china forum, or linuxsir.org, or something else. You can get exactly the same look in Linux and Windows, since every Windows font can be used as a Linux font, including the Microsft's rendering engine. Then the font issure is nothing to argue about... Okay now lets saying the Visual C++ compiler. (Call it VC for the following) I agree that VC dominates (especially in china) and I am one of the "professionals" using VC at my work. But I personally had done comparations for vc vesus gcc. The comparision is easy to do, just get the latest version of lame (the "almost-industry-standard" mp3 encoder), which compiles fluently under VC or under GCC, use maximum optimization and see the results. which lame.exe is faster? To be fair with the OS, I compared using cygwin version of gcc and the latest VC and run both programs within Windows XP, gcc unexpectedly wins. I'm not saying VC is inferior since I use VC everyday, just saying that VC does not necessarily faster than gcc in all aspects, there may be somewhere that VC does better, but for compiling C programs gcc might be better. VC has good ANSI C++98 support, however, VC does not have full ANSI C99 support, the standard C support of VC is not quite up-to-date, so that C sources that requires ANSI C99 cannot compile under VC. This bothers me a lot, since many C99 source must be amended before it can be compiled with VC. And I don't want to come back to the obsoleted C89 standard any more... GCC, however, has the best support for C99 and some exclusively useful extension for C. Let's assume VC is good in C++, but will it be that good for C? My painful experiences tells me, it is better not use VC for pure-C programs, since many shortcomings of C are overcomed in C99 and I cannot live without C99 if some application must use C. -- Sincerely, Pan, Shi Zhu. ext: 2606
-- Zhichao Hong, CSDP [EMAIL PROTECTED]
