- Here it is (Re: Here is why C and C++ are bad...) - 1 Update
- You have not understood my points - 1 Update
| Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com>: Jan 06 08:26PM >>AT&T Park is one of the great venues. > I can take CalTrain to the stadium, but it takes well over an hour > each way. I live 50 miles south of PacBell^H^H^H^H^H^H^H AT&T park. Watch the A's |
| SG <s.gesemann@gmail.com>: Jan 06 07:47AM -0800 On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 12:18:27 AM UTC+1, Ramine wrote: > in the scimark benchmark, so it is really suitable for math > programming also... > So Java is the best ! If Java suits you, good for you. IMHO, the big difference between Java and C++ w.r.t. high performance computing is that Java does not provide mechanisms for "zero-overhead abstractions". You tend to have little control over the memory layout of things and end up with pointer-heavy data structures because every user-defined type implies a layer of indirection you cannot avoid. For example, the FFT Scimark benchmark declares its FFT function to take a double[] (real and imaginary parts manually interleaved) instead of a Complex[] because that's the only way to get a "sane" memory layout. Cheers! sg |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment