Perl is too slow - A statement

[Peter J. Holzer]

PJH> If you have a bad SQL join it is completely irrelevant whether
PJH> you call it from PHP or Perl or C, and whether your PHP/Perl/C
PJH> code is in turn invoked by a request from Firefox or Opera or
PJH> IE. All your PHP/Perl/C code will do is wait while the RDBMS is
PJH> slogging through gigabytes of data, and all your browser will
PJH> do is wait for your PHP/Perl/C code.

Which touches off another argument: even if you have a *good* SQL join,
and your database is perfectly tuned, the I/O will still probably take
an order of magnitude more time than any computation you do with the
data.

Most of the time, yes. But I've seen cases where a perl process consumed
nearly 100 % CPU time in a loop like this:

while ($r = $sth->fetchrow_arrayref) {
set_bit($r->[0]);
}

Here the database was able to deliver rows a lot faster than perl was
able to process them, even though the processing was rather simple.

hp

 

[Charlton Wilbur]

MV> Yes, companies can just "buy bigger computers" but at some
MV> point, that's a waste. Guess you haven't gotten the memo that
MV> companies aren't buying new systems right now. They want to
MV> extend the use of their systems another couple years.

Consider this scenario.

You go to your manager, and say, "We could develop this new project in
C, which will take a team of six programmers six months, and we predict
that it will require one server at a cost of $2000 to run. Or we could
develop it in perl, which will take a team of six programmers five
months, but we predict that one server will not be sufficient at peak
load, so we recommend two servers at $2000 each."

Question 1: How much would the programmers have to be paid per year
before choosing C would make financial sense?

Question 2: Given that your programming team is probably making a lot
more than that, how likely is your boss to go for the C solution?

That's the sort of programmer time versus computer time tradeoff that
Uri is talking about. Computer time is *cheap* compared to programmer
time. This is not an argument in favor of never optimizing, but it's an
argument in favor of using tools that reduce programmer time investment
even if they increase computer time investment.

Charlton

 

[Nathan Keel]

NK> If you know the language, development time isn't an issue, so
comparing NK> an experience C programmer (whom will have libraries
(their own), NK> template scripts, etc. to re-use, unless they are
an idiot) and compare NK> it to an interpreted language and
development time, it's likely not
NK> going to be a whole lot different. And, the compiled code, if
it's NK> written well, will easily out perform the interpreted code.

study some computer history and come back when you have finished.

Please don't resort to acting like your view is fact and anyone that
doesn't agree with you is somehow ignorant. I "get" what you've said,
I just don't agree with it.

have
you ever worked on a computer which actually accounted for your cpu
time? you don't understand my point which is well known and
supported. cpu time used to be the major expense in those days,
developer time is the major expense now.

That's only true to a point. Many things have changed since the 60s and
70s. Indeed, we have a lot less to worry about as developers, but
that's no excuse to be lazy or stubborn about the topic. Certainly you
must agree that some compiled programs are much better suited for some
situation and applications? If so, you can't really knock C because
Perl is quicker to develop in.

NK> I quickly turned down the guy's offer, because he said exactly
what you NK> did above "If people want the program to run faster,
they can get a
NK> faster computer". That's an awful and often ignorant attitude.
Never NK> settle for code that's inefficient for the sake of a quick
turn around
NK> time. Perl is my favorite language, but if I care about speed
(and I
NK> mean really care), I'll plan to write it in C. If you are
speaking NK> from experience and how "in the real world", it's
important to consider NK> that you won't get jobs if you want to
create the best programs, that's NK> one thing, but hopefully not
many people have to work for shitty NK> companies that are that
clueless (or people above them that force them NK> into that
situation due to lack of planning or understanding the
NK> project). But, to each their own. I just hope I never end up
having NK> to work for someone like that, and luckily I've always
been able to NK> tell them to f--- off.

you don't get it.

I actually do, I just don't agree with your arrogant attitude.

study some history as i said. computer power is dirt
cheap today.

Yes, it is, but there are still limitations. If you think that slow
programs are fine, and say people should get faster systems if they
don't like it, then you're not as smart or knowledgeable as you
(clearly) like to think.

cheaper than you realize.

Apparently you claim to know what I realize about prices on systems and
components, too? Be arrogant if you want, but don't say stupid things.

developer cost is way more
expensive.

Probably, yes. However, that doesn't automatically mean it's either A
(hardware) or B (development time). You MUST understand there's a
middle ground, where you want efficient and suitable code, regardless
of the hardware aspects?

so buying more/faster computers is usually more economical
than hiring more and better developers.

Or when any idiot can create an inefficient program that uses up all of
the CPU and/or memory and/or system I/O and your theory about faster
systems falls on its face. Plenty of people suck at coding and people
also make mistakes (in code or the design) and these things just mean
that it takes 20 minutes to crash a "faster" system, than the 5 minutes
it takes for it to crash a slower system.

of course this isn't always
possible but it is a very strong rule of thumb. and note, i am a speed
freak coder.

If you say so.

Anyway, you certainly must agree that it's not always the best or viable
solution. I think that's a careless rule of thumb. My code is not
really any longer to develop than other peoples, and my code runs fast
and efficient on any system. I don't agree with the rule of getting a
faster system to account for inefficient or poor coding choices.

most of my cpan modules (id: uri) are about doing things
as fast as possible. and they usually succeed.

for a starter, read the mythical man month.

uri

I've read it. I've done research. I've been coding for a while (even
if not as long as you might have, I really don't know or care). I
still disagree. I think it's arrogance, ignorance, carelessness and
laziness that accounts for every situation where people's "solution" is
to upgrade a system when it's not otherwise necessary. Sometimes it
is, but if you have to because of a design choice, slow code, or choice
of language, then you should probably find a new line of work if that's
your general, generic "rule of thumb".

 

[sln]

MV> Yes, companies can just "buy bigger computers" but at some
MV> point, that's a waste. Guess you haven't gotten the memo that
MV> companies aren't buying new systems right now. They want to
MV> extend the use of their systems another couple years.

Consider this scenario.

You go to your manager, and say, "We could develop this new project in
C, which will take a team of six programmers six months, and we predict
that it will require one server at a cost of $2000 to run. Or we could
develop it in perl, which will take a team of six programmers five
months, but we predict that one server will not be sufficient at peak
load, so we recommend two servers at $2000 each."

Question 1: How much would the programmers have to be paid per year
before choosing C would make financial sense?

Question 2: Given that your programming team is probably making a lot
more than that, how likely is your boss to go for the C solution?

That's the sort of programmer time versus computer time tradeoff that
Uri is talking about. Computer time is *cheap* compared to programmer
time. This is not an argument in favor of never optimizing, but it's an
argument in favor of using tools that reduce programmer time investment
even if they increase computer time investment.

Charlton

That is total bullshit. Nobody uses C in large comercial applications.
C alone is not even used for development anymore. Legacy C library's stay intact,
and can be called from C++, but nobody uses C for new development, not even for
embedded/real-time stuff.

Perl is not used in comercial applications. Its uses are in a small niche and are
not sold because of its extreme limitations in speed, functionality and incomprehensible
syntax.

Perl is just a wrapper on the C language itself, or hadn't you noticed?
Even the mighty Expat library, written in C, the fastest flat xml parser in existence,
is 5-10 times slower when called from a Perl wrapper, the Perl interface to it.

You talk about development time and how expensive it is. You talk about buying more
cpu's. Thats absolute insanity. Your actually talking, in a 'macro' sense, what,
'distributed processing'? Sort of like, what, 'pipelining' macro code?

So let me get this straight, Perl is going to take over anything done in hardware,
specialized, like parallel matrix processor's.

Don't make me laff.

-sln

 

[A. Sinan Unur]

NK> If you know the language, development time isn't an issue, so
comparing NK> an experience C programmer (whom will have libraries
(their own), NK> template scripts, etc. to re-use, unless they are
an idiot) and compare NK> it to an interpreted language and
development time, it's likely not NK> going to be a whole lot
different. And, the compiled code, if it's NK> written well, will
easily out perform the interpreted code.

study some computer history and come back when you have finished. have
you ever worked on a computer which actually accounted for your cpu
time?

For a few years ;-) Haven't looked back ever since I was able to afford
my first PC.

In any case, I think the following article is somewhat related to the
point you are trying to make:

http://prog21.dadgum.com/29.html

Sinan
--
A. Sinan Unur <[email protected]>
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)

comp.lang.perl.misc guidelines on the WWW:
http://www.rehabitation.com/clpmisc/

 

[Xho Jingleheimerschmidt]

MV> Yes, companies can just "buy bigger computers" but at some
MV> point, that's a waste. Guess you haven't gotten the memo that
MV> companies aren't buying new systems right now. They want to
MV> extend the use of their systems another couple years.

Consider this scenario.

You go to your manager, and say, "We could develop this new project in
C, which will take a team of six programmers six months, and we predict
that it will require one server at a cost of $2000 to run. Or we could
develop it in perl, which will take a team of six programmers five
months, but we predict that one server will not be sufficient at peak
load, so we recommend two servers at $2000 each."

Did you account for the time needed to design this very complex system
so that it could seamlessly and efficiently spread the load over two
computers? Or is that why Perl development is only 17% faster than C?


Xho

 

[Nathan Keel]

Uri, please stop wasting your precious developer's time on these
types, because they will never get it.

We could also discuss algorithms that run processes in parallel that
wastefully produce overlapping results which are then merged and
deduped in order to get the final result much much earlier then when
we would let a speed addict touch it. But we can't discuss them if we
are too busy implementing them.

If you think it's a waste of time to discuss programming in a
programming news group, and think it makes sense to not look for the
best language or best programmers, instead of worrying about comparing
system costs vs. development costs, then no wonder you two are so
confused. There's nothing to "get" here. It's a matter of what's
appropriate and what options you have available. Just dismissing the
fact that some languages are better suited when they are compiled (like
C compared to Perl) is dumb (if you actually think it's going to take
"that much longer" and cost "that much more" just to code in C over
Perl). It doesn't take "that much longer" if you know C well (and that
was just an example). Most of my stuff is coded in Perl and scales
well, but there's a point when buying systems to make up for the
efficiency is going to be futile. If you agree with this, then you
must realize that "these types" DO in fact "get it". There's no hard
and fast rule.

I feel sorry for anyone that thinks buying systems is an appropriate
solution for poor decisions, when the real development time in C over
Perl isn't that much different if you have experience, intelligence and
use existing and well tested modules, libraries, code and function
templates, etc. (just like any developer would do in any language).
Or, you can think like that and jump on the Ruby on Rails bandwagon and
have everything pre-packages for you in simple ways and just call
yourself a programmer when you're only using toys other people made for
you. Then what happens when you don't have a
neat.little.function(available)?

What happens when you find that the language isn't fast enough? You buy
another system because you wanted to avoid a couple more hours of
development costs? Or do you often work with unqualified C programmers
to believe it's going to be that much more expensive and time
consuming? There are variables here that say what's better suited, and
if people don't "get it", then regardless of their arrogance, they are
the unfortunate one's. It think it's pathetic that people have to nit
pick the details of the topic and act like anyone that strives to be
the best coder are just nitpicking trivial speed that you can "buy for
less". This is not a true fact in every situation. I don't see anyone
suggesting people rock the boat with the company they work for or
contract out to, or to drop some language that works efficiently enough
as is (such as Perl) and refuse to code in anything other than C or
something, but logic is logic and it's silly to say people "don't get
it" because they disagree with you with the "default" outlook about
development costs vs. hardware. No real programmer would think this
way, but maybe you guys are just old and jaded and think whatever you
think about any topic brought up here, that you know best and your
ideals are always best, too. You, too, can be wrong (and you are about
this).

 

[Nathan Keel]

That is total bullshit. Nobody uses C in large comercial applications.
C alone is not even used for development anymore. Legacy C library's
stay intact, and can be called from C++, but nobody uses C for new
development, not even for embedded/real-time stuff.

I know of plenty of people and programs in C. Your feelings about the
matter aren't fact. I'm pretty sure "somebody" is not "nobody".

Perl is not used in comercial applications. Its uses are in a small
niche and are not sold because of its extreme limitations in speed,
functionality and incomprehensible syntax.

There are commercial applications in Perl, actually (but you're right,
probably not used in "comercial" applications).

Perl is just a wrapper on the C language itself, or hadn't you
noticed?

A "wrapper"? Seriously?

Even the mighty Expat library, written in C, the fastest flat
xml parser in existence, is 5-10 times slower when called from a Perl
wrapper, the Perl interface to it.

That's an awful comparison.

You talk about development time and how expensive it is. You talk
about buying more cpu's. Thats absolute insanity.

I agree with you here. Maybe I should get my head checked or reconsider
my position? *fear*

So let me get this straight, Perl is going to take over anything done
in hardware, specialized, like parallel matrix processor's.

I get what they are saying and why, but they have also made a poor
argument for a "standard" reaction to a problem better solved on
another level (usually anyway). Though I can't argue if the person's
boss or contracted company has unreasonable demands or limited time
frames.

Don't make me laff.

Don't make me get a DICtiontary.

 

[Uri Guttman]

NK> Please don't resort to acting like your view is fact and anyone that
NK> doesn't agree with you is somehow ignorant. I "get" what you've said,
NK> I just don't agree with it.

then you don't get it. cwilbur also covered this. sorry but no more
lessons for you.

NK> That's only true to a point. Many things have changed since the
NK> 60s and 70s. Indeed, we have a lot less to worry about as
NK> developers, but that's no excuse to be lazy or stubborn about the
NK> topic. Certainly you must agree that some compiled programs are
NK> much better suited for some situation and applications? If so,
NK> you can't really knock C because Perl is quicker to develop in.

you still don't get it. sorry. it is not about any particular
application. i wouldn't write an embedded rtos in 64k of ram with
perl. i would do it in assembler like i did on an lsi-11 back in
1980. hell, perl wasn't even invented back then. but given what i was
doing then on modern cpus, i would probably do it in perl as the cpu
speed is enough and the development time would be massively shorter. and
yes, i have also done those types of programs in c including a major web
crawler for northern light. so i know of something about development
time vs cpu power. can you make the same claim? me thinks not.

NK> I actually do, I just don't agree with your arrogant attitude.

no you are ignorant, vs my experience. NYAH NYAH NYAH!

now i will predict you will call me some more names. please do as it
will validate my ESP powers.

NK> Yes, it is, but there are still limitations. If you think that
NK> slow programs are fine, and say people should get faster systems
NK> if they don't like it, then you're not as smart or knowledgeable
NK> as you (clearly) like to think.

check out my cpan modules. try to make them faster. please do and send
me patches. i will use them (if you can but you can't) and even give you
all the credit.

NK> Probably, yes. However, that doesn't automatically mean it's either A
NK> (hardware) or B (development time). You MUST understand there's a
NK> middle ground, where you want efficient and suitable code, regardless
NK> of the hardware aspects?

boo hoo. you seem to be fighting for no reason. i never said any of
that. you don't get it again. it is the bigger picture.

NK> Or when any idiot can create an inefficient program that uses up
NK> all of the CPU and/or memory and/or system I/O and your theory
NK> about faster systems falls on its face. Plenty of people suck at
NK> coding and people also make mistakes (in code or the design) and
NK> these things just mean that it takes 20 minutes to crash a
NK> "faster" system, than the 5 minutes it takes for it to crash a
NK> slower system.

MMM to the rescue. please read it. i think they have a version written
in 4th grade level english for you.

NK> Anyway, you certainly must agree that it's not always the best or
NK> viable solution. I think that's a careless rule of thumb. My
NK> code is not really any longer to develop than other peoples, and
NK> my code runs fast and efficient on any system. I don't agree with
NK> the rule of getting a faster system to account for inefficient or
NK> poor coding choices.

all rules of thumb are careless. that's why they are CALLED that. duh!!

NK> I've read it. I've done research. I've been coding for a while
NK> (even if not as long as you might have, I really don't know or
NK> care). I still disagree. I think it's arrogance, ignorance,
NK> carelessness and laziness that accounts for every situation where
NK> people's "solution" is to upgrade a system when it's not otherwise
NK> necessary. Sometimes it is, but if you have to because of a
NK> design choice, slow code, or choice of language, then you should
NK> probably find a new line of work if that's your general, generic
NK> "rule of thumb".

well, then you get to manage a group of perfect coders who all do what
you want to do in zero time (just like Quantum::Superpostions! . and
you will make tons of money. otherwise you are stuck in the same
boat. you haven't experienced the real world yet it seems. good luck in
your fantasy.

as for my business it is recruiting and placing perl developers. i don't
think i will ask you for your resume in the near (or far)
future. claiming you know all this but not understanding it is not a
skill i would promote to my clients.

have the appropriate amount of fun!

uri

 

[Nathan Keel]

NK> Please don't resort to acting like your view is fact and anyone
that
NK> doesn't agree with you is somehow ignorant. I "get" what you've
said, NK> I just don't agree with it.

then you don't get it. cwilbur also covered this. sorry but no more
lessons for you.

Your pitiful arrogance is incredibly unappealing. I get it fine, you're
just acting like you know it all, because you can't handle someone
disagreeing with you.

NK> That's only true to a point. Many things have changed since the
NK> 60s and 70s. Indeed, we have a lot less to worry about as
NK> developers, but that's no excuse to be lazy or stubborn about
the
NK> topic. Certainly you must agree that some compiled programs are
NK> much better suited for some situation and applications? If so,
NK> you can't really knock C because Perl is quicker to develop in.

you still don't get it. sorry.

Don't apologize because you feel the need to accuse people of not
getting it because you can't handle someone disagreeing with you.

it is not about any particular
application. i wouldn't write an embedded rtos in 64k of ram with
perl. i would do it in assembler like i did on an lsi-11 back in
1980. hell, perl wasn't even invented back then. but given what i was
doing then on modern cpus, i would probably do it in perl as the cpu
speed is enough and the development time would be massively shorter.

Sure, if Perl is the right fit, and it usually is, then there's no
argument. Really, this has nothing to do with paying for CPU time back
in the 70s, so spare me. Anyway, I'm not speaking specifically of Perl
either, but certainly am using it in the relevant examples, since that
was the TOPIC of the thread.

and yes, i have also done those types of programs in c including a
major web crawler for northern light. so i know of something about
development time vs cpu power. can you make the same claim? me thinks
not.

When you use snobby and childish phrases like "me thinks not", you might
understand why it's difficult putting much faith in anything you say.
I've done plenty of interesting and large scale projects over the
years. I don't care what you've done, you're either right or wrong
about your views, or there's only room for opinion if there's no actual
right or wrong. In this case, I believe you are wrong. You believe
I'm wrong. This is going to get us somewhere by repeating what we
think of each other? By the way, I think your "shift" key is broken.

NK> I actually do, I just don't agree with your arrogant attitude.

no you are ignorant, vs my experience. NYAH NYAH NYAH!

Hey, that's you doing that, not me. You have no idea what I've done,
and you base your attempts at insult on the fact that you don't like my
disagreement with you. Instead of reading what I said, you'd rather
try and rail on me about things by saying how much more experienced you
are. The only thing you've actually illustrated, is that you're at the
very least not socially mature and you're arrogant. That doesn't mean
a flippin' thing to me.

now i will predict you will call me some more names. please do as it
will validate my ESP powers.

Your ESP powers suck, I never called you a name. So, you're resorting
to claiming knowing someone's knowledge, experience and what they've
said to try and save face? What's the purpose? You think you own this
damn group and you feel some need to throw a tantrum, or are you
foolish enough to think that my interpretation that you're arrogant and
ignorant (too stubborn to accept anything anyone says because you would
rather fight with them to tell them how smart you think you are), is
somehow name calling... and if so, if you somehow think it's okay for
you to call other people clueless and ignorant?

NK> Yes, it is, but there are still limitations. If you think that
NK> slow programs are fine, and say people should get faster systems
NK> if they don't like it, then you're not as smart or knowledgeable
NK> as you (clearly) like to think.

check out my cpan modules.

I've seen them.

try to make them faster. please do and send
me patches.

I've not ever claimed I would or could make your modules faster. Maybe I
can, and maybe I can't. My point was about how some compiled languages
compared to some interpreted languages, are going to be faster running
and more efficient. Assuming both examples are done by qualified
developers. You claim that based on that information that it's more
appropriate to just use an interpreted language and get a faster system
to run it on (if there's a problem with the program's speed), rather
than having someone develop the program in a compiled language like C.
That's ridiculous. I agreed that in a lot of cases, that might be
fine, there's nothing wrong with Perl, for example.

I never said people should take an existing program and re-do it in C
just for the sake of having it run faster. I never said that people
have the choice or time. I never said that some companies or
situations don't make a faster system a better option than using faster
code. I never said that at some point, given enough processing needs,
that regardless of the language used, that you may have to upgrade to a
faster system anyway (or use some load balanced solution, or whatever
else might be available). Also, sometimes the job pretty much forces
people to do those things and faster systems are always better and more
fun to work on anyway. Somehow, when I said "however, a person should
be able to (within a reasonable difference in time) develop a solution
in C without a lot more development time (if any), if they are truly
qualified, and sometimes a situation can benefit from that, where even
upgrading to faster systems won't achieve that same result.

If you don't agree, fine, but don't start making shit up and putting
words in my mouth. I actually didn't disagree with you on a lot of
points, I just said that it's careless to think that development time
is always more costly than a system upgrade and that it's a foolish and
ignorant "standard" response/reaction to have to a problem that can be
solved in other ways. I didn't say that option was always available in
every situation though. It's like a company that makes a product, they
do the shipping also and the shipping costs are killing them do to the
weight of the items and the smaller engine. You could say "let's put
bigger engines in the trucks to ship", or you could ask the product
development team (who exists anyway in these scenarios) how the work is
going on the new product that is 50 times lighter and has the same
structural integrity. Not to mention smaller and more portable, which
opens new profit options for the company and their consumer base.

You can keep stuffing bigger engines in there, until you run out of
engine compartment room and then start looking at bigger trucks, but if
it's going to actually be cheaper (yes, it's true) to start producing
the more efficient (by size and weight) product in the same or less
time, I'd go for the latter. Maybe it's my "inexperienced" and
"younger" attitude, but it makes sense to me. I repeat, it's not that
simple for every situation, so don't start making broad statements and
acting like that blanket statement is somehow a "fact" or that people
whom state that "this isn't always the case" and that "other variables
play a role" in those decisions, are somehow the "ignorant" one's that
"don't get it", because, honest to God, no matter how much you go on
about your experience, your modules or what you've done, it makes you
look like an arrogant asshole that's too stubborn to accept another
view point, which in the end makes you look stupid. Instead of being
civil and asking me to elaborate or provide an example, or you actually
bothering to do the same, you resort to touting yourself. Well, you
don't impress me.

i will use them (if you can but you can't) and even give
you all the credit.

I don't give a damn about you or your challenges. I know you like to
think you're a big shot, as evidenced by your attitude in this group
over years. I look past it, because you offer insightful and good code
fixes for people or ideas, but that doesn't make you the smartest and
most experienced person here about any and every topic, and this one
here is proof of that. Instead of listening to what I said, you revert
to what you've just done. I don't think you're an idiot, but if you
can't understand what I've said, ask for clarification and don't be so
hostile, or maybe consider a different aspect and view of the topic's
subject, or maybe reconsider just how smart you think you are? Maybe
for kicks I'll check out your modules and maybe I'll make improvement
suggestions, and maybe I won't find any or think it's the best code
I've ever seen, but that still doesn't mean jack regarding the topic at
hand.

NK> Probably, yes. However, that doesn't automatically mean it's
either A
NK> (hardware) or B (development time). You MUST understand there's
a NK> middle ground, where you want efficient and suitable code,
regardless NK> of the hardware aspects?

boo hoo. you seem to be fighting for no reason.

You need to get a grip and grow up. Also, try looking in a mirror.
There's no reason to be such a jerk because someone made a point you
don't agree with. This is ridiculous.

i never said any of
that. you don't get it again. it is the bigger picture.

What sort of jerk would just continue to claim someone doesn't "get it"
and not bother making their point? All you're doing is fighting with
me, which is ironic that you accuse me of just doing only that. You
really think you're someone special.

NK> Or when any idiot can create an inefficient program that uses up
NK> all of the CPU and/or memory and/or system I/O and your theory
NK> about faster systems falls on its face. Plenty of people suck
at NK> coding and people also make mistakes (in code or the design)
and NK> these things just mean that it takes 20 minutes to crash a
NK> "faster" system, than the 5 minutes it takes for it to crash a
NK> slower system.

MMM to the rescue. please read it. i think they have a version written
in 4th grade level english for you.

And if only you could use proper grammer, type with upper case for
proper nouns, and type the word "English" properly, it might make your
petty sarcasm more effective for the readers of the thread. You're a
world class asshole, man. Seriously. I realize you're a good Perl
coder and you've contributed some modules that are probably nice and
useful, but that doesn't give you a free pass to be an arrogant prick
and think I owe you something or you can treat any random person like a
piece of dirt. You're going to have to deal with the fact that people
don't think you're the genius you think you are. I've done a lot of
coding, too, and while I've not contributed a Perl module a lot of
people use, I've done some pretty complex stuff and am a good developer
and have a lot of experience. There are also a lot of people that are
just as good as you (and better) at coding in Perl, and they don't feel
the need to be an arrogant prick on this group. Apparently the only
way I can get through to you, is to recode your modules better (and
maybe I can), but what point would that prove? Is that the only way
you'd listen to someone? Do you think I need to prove something to
you, because you have it in your mind that you're just THAT special?
This is pathetic.

And, by the way, I've read plenty of MMM, I've even got the book and
everything. I have about 200 books that get into complex things, I've
read them and understand them. I've applied and used the information
and am able to formulate new ideas and theories and test them and
create and do. Yet, somehow your opinion isn't something I agree with,
so that makes me clueless to the point where you feel it's an
appropriate reaction to reply to me with insults and accusations about
my experience and knowledge, yet you know nothing about me. The only
thing this really tells me, is what sort of person you are. Your
pathetic attempts to apply your theories about me to make you feel
better about yourself don't actually make it true (though you're
probably arrogant enough to think that's all the basis you need for
your claims). Personally, anyone that reacts like that when they feel
threatened by someone on usenet disagreeing with them, I just can't
take too seriously.

NK> Anyway, you certainly must agree that it's not always the best
or
NK> viable solution. I think that's a careless rule of thumb. My
NK> code is not really any longer to develop than other peoples, and
NK> my code runs fast and efficient on any system. I don't agree
with NK> the rule of getting a faster system to account for
inefficient or NK> poor coding choices.

all rules of thumb are careless. that's why they are CALLED that.
duh!!

Some are more careless and foolish than others (duh)

NK> I've read it. I've done research. I've been coding for a while
NK> (even if not as long as you might have, I really don't know or
NK> care). I still disagree. I think it's arrogance, ignorance,
NK> carelessness and laziness that accounts for every situation
where NK> people's "solution" is to upgrade a system when it's not
otherwise
NK> necessary. Sometimes it is, but if you have to because of a
NK> design choice, slow code, or choice of language, then you should
NK> probably find a new line of work if that's your general, generic
NK> "rule of thumb".

well, then you get to manage a group of perfect coders who all do what
you want to do in zero time (just like Quantum::Superpostions! .

All sarcasm aside (can you manage to do that?) one needn't be a perfect
coder, just qualified and good. A bad coder or one that's considered
closer or further to or from being "perfect" doesn't matter what
language it is. The point was, your argument that someone it would
increase development time so severely by not just "getting a faster
system to solve the problem", was why it's a "good rule of thumb".
Untrue. So, do you make these decisions based on your lack of
experience and skills in another language, or because you can't chose
actual qualified programmers, or out of desperation, or just because
that's the gap that closes you and your code?

and
you will make tons of money. otherwise you are stuck in the same
boat. you haven't experienced the real world yet it seems. good luck
in your fantasy.

Apparently, if I say a good C coder with modules, libraries, code and
function templates (which any good C coder would have) can develop just
as efficiently as someone in Perl, you read that as "they do what you
want in zero time". Apparently, you're so arrogant that you can't
accept that some people have different experiences and opinions, else
NOW they also live in a fantasy world or lack "real world experience".
You're really something. Think you might be going a little too far in
your ranting there?

as for my business it is recruiting and placing perl developers.

And now I feel sorry for a group of people I've never met.

i
don't think i will ask you for your resume in the near (or far)
future.

And you get the impression I'd WANT to send you my resume or work with
or for someone like YOU in ANY capacity? Don't flatter yourself.
You're not keeping me from any work. You give yourself far too much
credit and influence points.

claiming you know all this but not understanding it is not a
skill i would promote to my clients.

I honest to God think you're clueless about this subject, or you're just
such an arrogant jerk that this is just standard operating procedure
for you.

have the appropriate amount of fun!

Don't worry, I know nothing I said will get through that thick layer of
smugness. Not that I usually care, it's not abnormal to see on usenet,
but you've not earned nor deserve getting away with it. You're just an
impossible jerk, but I know you won't let anything I say change your
mind or attitude. Feel free to claim I suffer from whatever other lack
of skills or experience you need to, to make you feel better and more
important about yourself, but you've not really come out on top of
anything. In the future, try and understand why someone's not going to
put up with your smugness and arrogance and don't hold it against them,
especially when you're wrong.

uri

nal cake.

 

[Bart Lateur]

You go to your manager, and say, "We could develop this new project in
C, which will take a team of six programmers six months, and we predict
that it will require one server at a cost of $2000 to run. Or we could
develop it in perl, which will take a team of six programmers five
months, but we predict that one server will not be sufficient at peak
load, so we recommend two servers at $2000 each."

That's not very realistic. If it requires 6 programmers for the C
solution, 1 or 2 Perl developers should suffice.

 

[Uri Guttman]

NK> Your pitiful arrogance is incredibly unappealing. I get it fine, you're
NK> just acting like you know it all, because you can't handle someone
NK> disagreeing with you.

my arrogance isn't pitiful!! your ignorance is remarkable. and you don't
get that you are being trolled as well as snickered at. my wife
disagrees with me all the time and i do fine with her.

NK> Don't apologize because you feel the need to accuse people of not
NK> getting it because you can't handle someone disagreeing with you.

that sorry is in sympathy, not apology. learn some semantics and sarcasm
please.

NK> When you use snobby and childish phrases like "me thinks not", you
NK> might understand why it's difficult putting much faith in anything
NK> you say. I've done plenty of interesting and large scale projects
NK> over the years. I don't care what you've done, you're either
NK> right or wrong about your views, or there's only room for opinion
NK> if there's no actual right or wrong. In this case, I believe you
NK> are wrong. You believe I'm wrong. This is going to get us
NK> somewhere by repeating what we think of each other? By the way, I
NK> think your "shift" key is broken.

ME THINKS THOU DOTH NOT GET THE JOKE IS ON YOU. emacs upcase-word to the
rescue!


NK> I actually do, I just don't agree with your arrogant attitude.
NK> Hey, that's you doing that, not me. You have no idea what I've done,
NK> and you base your attempts at insult on the fact that you don't like my
NK> disagreement with you. Instead of reading what I said, you'd rather
NK> try and rail on me about things by saying how much more experienced you
NK> are. The only thing you've actually illustrated, is that you're at the
NK> very least not socially mature and you're arrogant. That doesn't mean
NK> a flippin' thing to me.

nah, i base my insult on how you don't see the big vs little issue
here. and you haven't shown any real world experience in either scaling
nor fast code. put up or shut up as they say. but i am having fun with
you. please keep it up.

NK> Your ESP powers suck, I never called you a name. So, you're
NK> resorting to claiming knowing someone's knowledge, experience and
NK> what they've said to try and save face? What's the purpose? You
NK> think you own this damn group and you feel some need to throw a
NK> tantrum, or are you foolish enough to think that my interpretation
NK> that you're arrogant and ignorant (too stubborn to accept anything
NK> anyone says because you would rather fight with them to tell them
NK> how smart you think you are), is somehow name calling... and if
NK> so, if you somehow think it's okay for you to call other people
NK> clueless and ignorant?

wow, my ESP worked! you fell for my trap and replied with more silliness
and weak insults. in fact this trap always works like peanut butter in a
mousetrap.

NK> I've seen them.

NK> I've not ever claimed I would or could make your modules
NK> faster. Maybe I can, and maybe I can't. My point was about how
NK> some compiled languages compared to some interpreted languages,
NK> are going to be faster running and more efficient. Assuming both
NK> examples are done by qualified developers. You claim that based
NK> on that information that it's more appropriate to just use an
NK> interpreted language and get a faster system to run it on (if
NK> there's a problem with the program's speed), rather than having
NK> someone develop the program in a compiled language like C. That's
NK> ridiculous. I agreed that in a lot of cases, that might be fine,
NK> there's nothing wrong with Perl, for example.

you still don't get the cost difference. i have done large projects in c
and perl. i don't do c anymore. but you won't understand why since you
haven't done such things. most of my time in c was wasted doing mundane
and boring and nitpicky shit that perl does for me. but i won't go
further in explaining this to you. i might as well convince guido to use
perl.

NK> You can keep stuffing bigger engines in there, until you run out of
NK> engine compartment room and then start looking at bigger trucks, but if
NK> it's going to actually be cheaper (yes, it's true) to start producing
NK> the more efficient (by size and weight) product in the same or less
NK> time, I'd go for the latter. Maybe it's my "inexperienced" and
NK> "younger" attitude, but it makes sense to me. I repeat, it's not that
NK> simple for every situation, so don't start making broad statements and
NK> acting like that blanket statement is somehow a "fact" or that people
NK> whom state that "this isn't always the case" and that "other variables
NK> play a role" in those decisions, are somehow the "ignorant" one's that
NK> "don't get it", because, honest to God, no matter how much you go on
NK> about your experience, your modules or what you've done, it makes you
NK> look like an arrogant asshole that's too stubborn to accept another
NK> view point, which in the end makes you look stupid. Instead of being
NK> civil and asking me to elaborate or provide an example, or you actually
NK> bothering to do the same, you resort to touting yourself. Well, you
NK> don't impress me.

i don't want to impress you. i want to troll you. and i am being
explicit. and if you reply again, you will be falling into the trap
again. you don't have a leg to stand on here. you don't know enough
about cpu vs developer costs nor scaling nor program speed. it is called
systems architecture (which happens to be the name of my corp, sysarch!
.

NK> I don't give a damn about you or your challenges. I know you like
NK> to think you're a big shot, as evidenced by your attitude in this
NK> group over years. I look past it, because you offer insightful
NK> and good code fixes for people or ideas, but that doesn't make you
NK> the smartest and most experienced person here about any and every
NK> topic, and this one here is proof of that. Instead of listening
NK> to what I said, you revert to what you've just done. I don't
NK> think you're an idiot, but if you can't understand what I've said,
NK> ask for clarification and don't be so hostile, or maybe consider a
NK> different aspect and view of the topic's subject, or maybe
NK> reconsider just how smart you think you are? Maybe for kicks I'll
NK> check out your modules and maybe I'll make improvement
NK> suggestions, and maybe I won't find any or think it's the best
NK> code I've ever seen, but that still doesn't mean jack regarding
NK> the topic at hand.

i am not a big shot. i am just a very skilled and confident software
engineer with many successful projects in a wide range of areas. this
gives me the real world experience to talk about subjects such as cpu vs
developer costs. simple as that.

NK> You need to get a grip and grow up. Also, try looking in a mirror.
NK> There's no reason to be such a jerk because someone made a point you
NK> don't agree with. This is ridiculous.

no, you are ridiculous. you have been trolled over and over. i can argue
your side better than you can. lawyers do that all the time. the point
is i choose which side i want to be on and play with you like a kitten
and a string. meow!!

NK> What sort of jerk would just continue to claim someone doesn't "get it"
NK> and not bother making their point? All you're doing is fighting with
NK> me, which is ironic that you accuse me of just doing only that. You
NK> really think you're someone special.

because you keep arguing for no reason. you won't win, no one else is
defending your weak point and you don't have the experience to defend it
yourself.

NK> And, by the way, I've read plenty of MMM, I've even got the book
NK> and everything. I have about 200 books that get into complex
NK> things, I've read them and understand them. I've applied and used

cat in the hat books don't count!

NK> the information and am able to formulate new ideas and theories
NK> and test them and create and do. Yet, somehow your opinion isn't
NK> something I agree with, so that makes me clueless to the point
NK> where you feel it's an appropriate reaction to reply to me with
NK> insults and accusations about my experience and knowledge, yet you
NK> know nothing about me. The only thing this really tells me, is

you are what you post here.

NK> Some are more careless and foolish than others (duh)

speak for yourself!

NK> All sarcasm aside (can you manage to do that?) one needn't be a
NK> perfect coder, just qualified and good. A bad coder or one that's
NK> considered closer or further to or from being "perfect" doesn't
NK> matter what language it is. The point was, your argument that
NK> someone it would increase development time so severely by not just
NK> "getting a faster system to solve the problem", was why it's a
NK> "good rule of thumb". Untrue. So, do you make these decisions
NK> based on your lack of experience and skills in another language,
NK> or because you can't chose actual qualified programmers, or out of
NK> desperation, or just because that's the gap that closes you and
NK> your code?

you still don't get it. cost is the issue. pure and simple. you can
budget for more cpu better than you can budget for more and better
coders.

NK> Apparently, if I say a good C coder with modules, libraries, code
NK> and function templates (which any good C coder would have) can
NK> develop just as efficiently as someone in Perl, you read that as
NK> "they do what you want in zero time". Apparently, you're so
NK> arrogant that you can't accept that some people have different
NK> experiences and opinions, else NOW they also live in a fantasy
NK> world or lack "real world experience". You're really something.
NK> Think you might be going a little too far in your ranting there?

i see london, i see france, i see you in your under-rants!

NK> And now I feel sorry for a group of people I've never met.

too bad. some of the best perl hackers in the world have used me for an
agent. like i said, you won't be one of them.

NK> And you get the impression I'd WANT to send you my resume or work with
NK> or for someone like YOU in ANY capacity? Don't flatter yourself.
NK> You're not keeping me from any work. You give yourself far too much
NK> credit and influence points.

i never said i had influence to stop you from working. i wouldn't even
do that if i could. i just wouldn't represent someone with such a narrow
view of things, who can't properly argue a point, who can't see the
forest for the trees, who can't be flexible in thought.

NK> I honest to God think you're clueless about this subject, or
NK> you're just such an arrogant jerk that this is just standard
NK> operating procedure for you.

you keep saying arrogant jerk. i don't think you know what that
means. INCONCEIVABLE!

NK> Don't worry, I know nothing I said will get through that thick layer of
NK> smugness. Not that I usually care, it's not abnormal to see on usenet,
NK> but you've not earned nor deserve getting away with it. You're just an
NK> impossible jerk, but I know you won't let anything I say change your
NK> mind or attitude. Feel free to claim I suffer from whatever other lack
NK> of skills or experience you need to, to make you feel better and more
NK> important about yourself, but you've not really come out on top of
NK> anything. In the future, try and understand why someone's not going to
NK> put up with your smugness and arrogance and don't hold it against them,
NK> especially when you're wrong.

my smugness is a thin layer. on the other hand, your rectum is occupied
by your cranium! get a cerebral enema soon! ta ta!

uri

 

[Dr.Ruud]

(e-mail address removed) wrote:

Excuse me?

Can't you just ignore it? Oh wait, I can ignore you.

 

[Jorgen Grahn]

That is total bullshit. Nobody uses C in large comercial applications.
C alone is not even used for development anymore. Legacy C library's stay intact,
and can be called from C++, but nobody uses C for new development, not even for
embedded/real-time stuff.

C is the only language I've encountered in embedded/real-time
applications. OK, also a tiny amount of poorly-written C++. I think
they'd be better off with C++, but more people need to learn it first.

I also note that the Linux system I write this on is almost
exclusively written in C.

Perl is not used in comercial applications. Its uses are in a small niche and are
not sold because of its extreme limitations in speed, functionality and incomprehensible
syntax.

Depends on your point of view, I suppose. We use Perl at work when we
need to parse huge (gigabytes) text files. I doubt that I could do
that faster in any other language or with more readable code. And I
have both C++ and Python in my toolbox.

You talk about development time and how expensive it is. You talk about buying more
cpu's. Thats absolute insanity. Your actually talking, in a 'macro' sense, what,
'distributed processing'? Sort of like, what, 'pipelining' macro code?

The Chewbacca defense?

/Jorgen

 

[Charlton Wilbur]

BL> That's not very realistic. If it requires 6 programmers for the
BL> C solution, 1 or 2 Perl developers should suffice.

Probably, but I was trying not to stack the deck overwhelmingly. And
I've run into some really good C programmers and some really bad Perl
programmers.

Charlton

 

[Nathan Keel]

NK> Your pitiful arrogance is incredibly unappealing. I get it
fine, you're NK> just acting like you know it all, because you can't
handle someone NK> disagreeing with you.

my arrogance isn't pitiful!! your ignorance is remarkable.

This is sad, you just don't know when to stop. Calm down a little and
get off your high horse. You don't deserve half the free pass to have
this attitude that you like to think you do.

and you
don't get that you are being trolled as well as snickered at. my wife
disagrees with me all the time and i do fine with her.

So, you're saying you're being a troll? Why is it that I don't "get"
that I'm being trolled and "snickered" at by you? You're posting to me
just as much as I'm posting to you. I genuinely think you lack a clue
about this and I'm trying to help you understand. Don't let the fact I
don't put up with your BS cloud the matter. Anyway, it's funny you
mention your wife, because my wife isn't a programmer and she
immediately gets that it's a stupid thing to suggest a good plan of
action is to get more systems or more powerful systems to make up for
poor programming language choices. You can strive to make up in CPU
power for your language choices if you want, but I'm a programmer that
strives for the best choices and the best/fastest code. If it gets to
the point where a language choice doesn't help the situation, then
sure, upgrade. We've been through all of this, and you still can't
accept or understand it.

NK> Don't apologize because you feel the need to accuse people of
not NK> getting it because you can't handle someone disagreeing with
you.

that sorry is in sympathy, not apology. learn some semantics and
sarcasm please.

Oh, so the clueless guy feels bad for the guy that gets it, because the
clueless guy can't comprehend what I said or why. Anyway, learn to use
proper grammer and use upper case letters for your proper nouns and
maybe I'll give you a little more credit.

NK> When you use snobby and childish phrases like "me thinks not",
you NK> might understand why it's difficult putting much faith in
anything
NK> you say. I've done plenty of interesting and large scale
projects
NK> over the years. I don't care what you've done, you're either
NK> right or wrong about your views, or there's only room for
opinion
NK> if there's no actual right or wrong. In this case, I believe
you
NK> are wrong. You believe I'm wrong. This is going to get us
NK> somewhere by repeating what we think of each other? By the way,
I NK> think your "shift" key is broken.

ME THINKS THOU DOTH NOT GET THE JOKE IS ON YOU. emacs upcase-word to
the rescue!

It figures you'd not "get" what was meant about your shift key. So,
it's either all caps or no caps. Good for you.

NK> I actually do, I just don't agree with your arrogant attitude.

NK> Hey, that's you doing that, not me. You have no idea what I've
done, NK> and you base your attempts at insult on the fact that you
don't like my
NK> disagreement with you. Instead of reading what I said, you'd
rather NK> try and rail on me about things by saying how much more
experienced you
NK> are. The only thing you've actually illustrated, is that you're
at the
NK> very least not socially mature and you're arrogant. That
doesn't mean NK> a flippin' thing to me.

nah, i base my insult on how you don't see the big vs little issue
here.

You're pathetic. In fact, your rationalizations and reactions here are
actually making me start to worry about just how good or bad your
module can really is, since you've mentioned it. If you're so dense
that you can't get this and are such a prick about it, you just can't
be very good at your job.

and you haven't shown any real world experience in either
scaling nor fast code. put up or shut up as they say. but i am having
fun with you. please keep it up.

I'm not going to list companies or projects to cater to you, because
it's irrelevant and I don't owe you anything. None of that has any
relation to this topic. Who you've worked for or what you've done
doesn't mean you can list off things and that it somehow means you're
right about an unrelated matter. I could list some things, and even
you would maybe be impressed, but it wouldn't make what I say any more
or any less correct. When you figure that out and stop with the
arrogant nonsense, you're welcome to discuss the topic like a civil
person.

NK> Your ESP powers suck, I never called you a name. So, you're
NK> resorting to claiming knowing someone's knowledge, experience
and
NK> what they've said to try and save face? What's the purpose?
You NK> think you own this damn group and you feel some need to
throw a NK> tantrum, or are you foolish enough to think that my
interpretation NK> that you're arrogant and ignorant (too stubborn
to accept anything NK> anyone says because you would rather fight
with them to tell them NK> how smart you think you are), is somehow
name calling... and if NK> so, if you somehow think it's okay for
you to call other people NK> clueless and ignorant?

wow, my ESP worked! you fell for my trap and replied with more
silliness and weak insults. in fact this trap always works like peanut
butter in a mousetrap.

You are a seriously confused individual.

NK> I've seen them.


NK> I've not ever claimed I would or could make your modules
NK> faster. Maybe I can, and maybe I can't. My point was about how
NK> some compiled languages compared to some interpreted languages,
NK> are going to be faster running and more efficient. Assuming
both
NK> examples are done by qualified developers. You claim that based
NK> on that information that it's more appropriate to just use an
NK> interpreted language and get a faster system to run it on (if
NK> there's a problem with the program's speed), rather than having
NK> someone develop the program in a compiled language like C.
That's
NK> ridiculous. I agreed that in a lot of cases, that might be
fine, NK> there's nothing wrong with Perl, for example.

you still don't get the cost difference.

I do, it is you that doesn't.

i have done large projects in
c and perl.

And you clearly don't know C well.

i don't do c anymore.

Good, because you aren't very good at development in it. Stick to Perl.

but you won't understand why since
you haven't done such things.

I have. You just saying I haven't because you want to claim it to try
and win some fight with someone on usenet, doesn't actually make it
true. You're sad.

most of my time in c was wasted doing
mundane and boring and nitpicky shit that perl does for me.
Irrelevant.

but i
won't go further in explaining this to you. i might as well convince
guido to use perl.

You don't need to convince me of anything, I use Perl as well. You're
not making a valid point.

NK> You can keep stuffing bigger engines in there, until you run out
of NK> engine compartment room and then start looking at bigger
trucks, but if NK> it's going to actually be cheaper (yes, it's
true) to start producing NK> the more efficient (by size and weight)
product in the same or less
NK> time, I'd go for the latter. Maybe it's my "inexperienced" and
NK> "younger" attitude, but it makes sense to me. I repeat, it's
not that NK> simple for every situation, so don't start making broad
statements and NK> acting like that blanket statement is somehow a
"fact" or that people NK> whom state that "this isn't always the
case" and that "other variables NK> play a role" in those decisions,
are somehow the "ignorant" one's that NK> "don't get it", because,
honest to God, no matter how much you go on NK> about your
experience, your modules or what you've done, it makes you NK> look
like an arrogant asshole that's too stubborn to accept another
NK> view point, which in the end makes you look stupid. Instead of
being NK> civil and asking me to elaborate or provide an example, or
you actually
NK> bothering to do the same, you resort to touting yourself. Well,
you NK> don't impress me.

i don't want to impress you.

But you sure try to. Don't worry, there's no threat of that happening.

i want to troll you.

I agree, you're being a troll.

and i am being
explicit. and if you reply again, you will be falling into the trap
again.

Am I supposed to believe that I'm being a sucker if I fall into the trap
of replying to you, yet you're better than me even as you continue to
reply to me?

you don't have a leg to stand on here.

Your arrogance is pathetic and misplaced.

you don't know enough
about cpu vs developer costs nor scaling nor program speed.

Just saying nonsense insults because you're lost a fight with someone on
usenet doesn't make it true. Of course, you're too smug to realize
this. That's probably why you can't accept anyone disagreeing with you
and that's why you'll never learn. It's good that you stick to what
you know, because you sound like a problem developer in any other
language,

it is
called systems architecture (which happens to be the name of my corp,
sysarch!
.

Not that I'd ever do business with a clueless and arrogant person like
you, but I'll be sure to stay clear. Thanks.

NK> I don't give a damn about you or your challenges. I know you
like NK> to think you're a big shot, as evidenced by your attitude
in this
NK> group over years. I look past it, because you offer insightful
NK> and good code fixes for people or ideas, but that doesn't make
you NK> the smartest and most experienced person here about any and
every
NK> topic, and this one here is proof of that. Instead of listening
NK> to what I said, you revert to what you've just done. I don't
NK> think you're an idiot, but if you can't understand what I've
said, NK> ask for clarification and don't be so hostile, or maybe
consider a NK> different aspect and view of the topic's subject, or
maybe
NK> reconsider just how smart you think you are? Maybe for kicks
I'll NK> check out your modules and maybe I'll make improvement
NK> suggestions, and maybe I won't find any or think it's the best
NK> code I've ever seen, but that still doesn't mean jack regarding
NK> the topic at hand.

i am not a big shot.

Damn right you're not.

i am just a very skilled and confident software
engineer

I beg to differ. If you don't get what I said, then you're a sloppy,
inefficient coder, at least in C anyway.

with many successful projects in a wide range of areas.

You're not the only clueless, arrogant and stubborn jerk out there
that's done something. People that have done more than you also
disagree with your concepts.

this
gives me the real world experience to talk about subjects such as cpu
vs developer costs. simple as that.

I've done many things as well. People other than me have as well, many
people. Those people also disagree with your methods and rules of
thumb. You're not the only one with real world experience and not
everyone that has it agrees with you. Simple as that.

NK> You need to get a grip and grow up. Also, try looking in a
mirror. NK> There's no reason to be such a jerk because someone made
a point you
NK> don't agree with. This is ridiculous.

no, you are ridiculous.

I know you are, but what am I?

you have been trolled over and over.

Ugh. You saying you're trolling is supposed to mean something?

i can
argue your side better than you can.

No, you just think you can, which goes further to explain your arrogant
attitude. You don't realize how pathetic that is.

lawyers do that all the time. the
point is i choose which side i want to be on and play with you like a
kitten and a string. meow!!

Right, if I reply to you, I'm some puppet dancing to your will, but if
you reply to me, it's because you're *not* a puppet? Anyway, I know
this is just us arguing with each other, so we both look stupid.
However, unlike "choosing a side" arbitrarily, I happen to opt for the
side that is correct and make points with merit. You, just think you
are special and I think your actions here are suspect and weird.
Somehow, you think it makes you look smarter or something.

NK> What sort of jerk would just continue to claim someone doesn't
"get it"
NK> and not bother making their point? All you're doing is fighting
with
NK> me, which is ironic that you accuse me of just doing only that.
You NK> really think you're someone special.

because you keep arguing for no reason.

You reply to me and say I'm wrong, I reply and explain how I'm not
wrong. When someone accuses you and you reply, apparently you are
replying for no reason? How dumb are you?

you won't win,

Of course I won't "win", because you are intent on dismissing anything I
say and want to just mindlessly ramble on about how I'm wrong, among
other misplaced accusations. On the other hand, you won't win either.

no one else is
defending your weak point

You mean out of the whole THREE people in total whom commented on this
topic? Who cares?

and you don't have the experience to defend
it yourself.

I do, and I find it interesting that you continue to claim this because
you have no leg to stand on. Honestly, it's sad. You can't help but
convince yourself that if I don't agree with you, that I lack the
experience to disagree with you. Don't you think that's a pretty good
indication that you're being a bit too arrogant?

NK> And, by the way, I've read plenty of MMM, I've even got the book
NK> and everything. I have about 200 books that get into complex
NK> things, I've read them and understand them. I've applied and
used

cat in the hat books don't count!

That's the best you can come up with? How about the fact I have read
MMM and still don't agree with you? How about the fact I have
experience to debate this with you and you chose to dismiss it and make
further insults about maturity, all while you're acting like a child?

NK> the information and am able to formulate new ideas and theories
NK> and test them and create and do. Yet, somehow your opinion
isn't NK> something I agree with, so that makes me clueless to the
point NK> where you feel it's an appropriate reaction to reply to me
with NK> insults and accusations about my experience and knowledge,
yet you
NK> know nothing about me. The only thing this really tells me, is

you are what you post here.

Yes, that is true, which explains why I don't feel you've added any
value at all to this thread. I get it, you're a smug asshole that has
reached his prime back about 15 years ago and whatever you think is the
way it is in your mind, and you'll fight tooth and nail with anyone
that disagrees with you, regardless of how valid and true their points
are. In fact, you'll even resort to making wild accusations, all
because someone doesn't agree with you or put up with your BS. You
think those are endearing qualities? Guess what, they aren't, and I
WILL put you in your place every time.

NK> Some are more careless and foolish than others (duh)

speak for yourself!

Oh dear, you just aren't any good at this.

NK> All sarcasm aside (can you manage to do that?) one needn't be a
NK> perfect coder, just qualified and good. A bad coder or one
that's NK> considered closer or further to or from being "perfect"
doesn't
NK> matter what language it is. The point was, your argument that
NK> someone it would increase development time so severely by not
just NK> "getting a faster system to solve the problem", was why
it's a
NK> "good rule of thumb". Untrue. So, do you make these decisions
NK> based on your lack of experience and skills in another language,
NK> or because you can't chose actual qualified programmers, or out
of NK> desperation, or just because that's the gap that closes you
and NK> your code?

you still don't get it.

No, YOU still don't get it. Hey, maybe if you say it enough times,
it'll come true?

cost is the issue. pure and simple.

Indeed, if cost is the only issue, it could be true that a faster system
is the solution. However, that's not always the case. Deal with that
fact. Also, you need to consider that maybe you lack experience in
languages like C if you believe that development costs for the same
program coded in C and running more efficiently/faster are somehow cost
prohibitive in every situation. They are not.

you can
budget for more cpu better than you can budget for more and better
coders.

And that's the problem with a shitty coder's attitude that you have.
Anyone should strive to have the best coders and best code that's
within reason. And, no, that doesn't mean people should extend the
project's development time or be unreasonable about nitpicking. Only a
complete idiot would think that budgeting more CPU is a better idea
than having qualified coders that can complete the project on time.
You think you're a big shot pro coder, but that relentless and hostile
outlook on this matter by you, where you have to insult people that say
that perhaps sometimes it's not always the best solution to just throw
more CPU at a code problem, shows you are far from what you think you
are. You're such an arrogant jerk, that you'll never accept it anyway,
so why are you here? Oh right, to troll. Oh, you're such a fun guy.

NK> Apparently, if I say a good C coder with modules, libraries,
code NK> and function templates (which any good C coder would have)
can NK> develop just as efficiently as someone in Perl, you read
that as NK> "they do what you want in zero time". Apparently, you're
so NK> arrogant that you can't accept that some people have
different NK> experiences and opinions, else NOW they also live in a
fantasy
NK> world or lack "real world experience". You're really something.
NK> Think you might be going a little too far in your ranting there?

i see london, i see france, i see you in your under-rants!

Hey, whatever you do, be sure to dismiss anything I say, because you
can't handle people making a valid point. So far, so good. I'd hate
to see you deviate from your attitude and disappoint me.

NK> And now I feel sorry for a group of people I've never met.

too bad. some of the best perl hackers in the world have used me for
an agent.

That is absolutely irrelevant. I get you think highly of yourself, but
I honestly don't care. If you're too stupid to understand this subject
and my view without going nuts and trolling in response, then I can
only say that you might be good at Perl, but that sounds to be about
it. Notice I didn't resort to your reaction and start saying you suck
at Perl. However, I honestly and starting to wonder about some things.
Also, notice no one high up in the C coding world has done this same
thing for you, and that should say something. Just because you might
be a good Perl coder doesn't mean you know everything. One day, when
you mature and lose a little of the arrogance, you'll understand that,
Billy.

like i said, you won't be one of them.

Like I care? I'd never want to work for or with you in any capacity
(like I said). You are so scummy, that you'd continue to verbalize
such feelings about someone, because they don't agree with you, and
it's ironic that I don't care, yet you continue to go on about it.
Guess what? I DON'T CARE. I don't give a damn how important you think
you are. Anyway, I doubt that what you think matters (I know it
certainly doesn't matter to me).

NK> And you get the impression I'd WANT to send you my resume or
work with
NK> or for someone like YOU in ANY capacity? Don't flatter
yourself.
NK> You're not keeping me from any work. You give yourself far too
much NK> credit and influence points.

i never said i had influence to stop you from working.

No, you didn't, but you eluded to it, if it was within your network.
You furether went on to say that you do Perl job placement and would
never place me, which is pretty much the same thing. Again, I swear to
God that I don't care, so there's no reason to discuss that any
further.

i wouldn't even
do that if i could.

Yeah, sure you wouldn't.

i just wouldn't represent someone with such a
narrow view of things,

Oh my God, that's EXACTLY what I was thinking about you!

who can't properly argue a point,

Oh my God, that's EXACTLY what I was thinking about you!

who can't see
the forest for the trees,

Oh my God, that's EXACTLY what I was thinking about you!

who can't be flexible in thought.

Oh my God, that's EXACTLY what I was thinking about you! And even more
to the point, is that I myself said that sometimes upgrading a system
is the right solution, but "just not always", and this is the entire
reason you're fighting with me, yet you can't accept it to the point
where you do, well, you do what you've done in this thread, and it's so
pitifully ironic that you use that as a basis to say that I am the one
that is unable to be "flexible in thought". Honestly, that's just sad.

NK> I honest to God think you're clueless about this subject, or
NK> you're just such an arrogant jerk that this is just standard
NK> operating procedure for you.

you keep saying arrogant jerk.

And somehow you keep acting like an arrogant jerk. Wow, the variables
in this equation are fascinating.

i don't think you know what that
means. INCONCEIVABLE!

Uh... Okay then.

NK> Don't worry, I know nothing I said will get through that thick
layer of
NK> smugness. Not that I usually care, it's not abnormal to see on
usenet,
NK> but you've not earned nor deserve getting away with it. You're
just an NK> impossible jerk, but I know you won't let anything I say
change your
NK> mind or attitude. Feel free to claim I suffer from whatever
other lack NK> of skills or experience you need to, to make you feel
better and more NK> important about yourself, but you've not really
come out on top of
NK> anything. In the future, try and understand why someone's not
going to NK> put up with your smugness and arrogance and don't hold
it against them, NK> especially when you're wrong.

my smugness is a thin layer.

Hardly. It's as thick as it gets.

on the other hand, your rectum is
occupied by your cranium! get a cerebral enema soon! ta ta!

Oh, what a great comeback. Just as long as you don't actually make any
valid points or disprove anything I said. I think you're safe for
another post.

uri

nal cake

 

[Uri Guttman]

ignored. like i should have done earlier. you keep falling for my
trolling.

buh bye!

uri

 

[Nathan Keel]

ignored. like i should have done earlier. you keep falling for my
trolling.

Again, you want to act like I'm an idiot (or dancing puppet) for
replying to your posts to me, yet you reply to mine. That's a poor
method to try and make me look bad. Seriously, that's another
indication of your arrogance going too far. Try and act like someone's
a fool for doing what you are doing yourself. I honestly don't think
you're as special as you think you are.

Maybe, at least, consider practicing what you preach. Also, it's
probably a good bet to make a valid point if you're going to argue with
someone, instad of going on about how wonderfully skilled you think you
are and how you think that being good at Perl means that you're right
about any topic in the world, even when you're wrong. Oh yeah, I guess
that means I'm really "falling for it". *sigh* Honestly, that's just
freaking weird and sad.

buh bye!

Good riddance... if you really mean it.

uri

nal cake

 

[Nathan Keel]

Did you account for the time needed to design this very complex system
so that it could seamlessly and efficiently spread the load over two
computers? Or is that why Perl development is only 17% faster than C?


Xho

I agree, though it can depend on how the balancing solution is
implemented, as it could be done in a short amount of time. This is
assuming the program exists, else it would be odd to plan on something
that would be a less efficient choice (and that's certainly a "maybe"
and can depend anyway). Also, planning for a lot of processing might
require either language choice to use some balancing solution (even
across many servers).

However, my honest opinion in the real world, is that most programmers
in Perl or C aren't the best out there, so the comparisons really
likely don't make a lot of sense in the real world, but given two
quality programmers going head to head, I have seen real world
experience that C isn't that much longer to develop in and the speeds
*should* be faster. Since most programmers aren't that great, you
probably have to throw more processing power at the problem anyway.

But, all things being (theoretically equal) and with that all said, I
have plenty of efficient Perl code that I've created and ran for over a
decade and don't need to change it to C just for an increase in speed,
though for some projects I'd like to get around to that at some point.
In fact, I also might just opt to do a load balanced solution instead
of going the C route, if it could solve it, but I'd sure plan to get
time to re-work it for C if it was that busy. Just saying this
apparently offends some people, but I really don't care if people think
I'm "going too far" by being a speed/efficiency freak. I've seen
people react poorly in the same ways about security designs when
developing and they think there are easier or better ways to deal with
the problem, than to actually just code securely (and I'm serious).

In the end, if I ever told someone that I was contracted to program for
them, or my employer that, "if you want it to run better or faster, get
faster systems", I'd have been quickly ripped a "new one" or fired, and
definitely lost the respect of the people I was on the same programming
team with. Obviously there are a lot of variables involved and if you
have an existing program (especially if it's really involved) that's
complete or nearly complete in Perl, then it's proabably better to get
a faster system or do some load balancing or something similar, instead
of re-doing it all in C and waiting, but I am bothered when people get
so worked up when someone suggests that you should never plan to bother
with C because Perl is good enough and you can just upgrade systems.
Say that at an interview and see how many people agree, too. Again,
I'm not saying everything or even anything in particular should be done
in C instead, but I don't get what the big hoopla is with some people
about it.

 

[Nathan Keel]

Not necessarily. That same idiot would make the same/similar mistakes
in any faster language too.

Yes, that is 100% true, but this was about comparing speed/efficiency of
the language choice. Certainly, a lot of variables could be also
considered to alter the view, but all things being equal, the point
would be valid.

The real worry is when it doesn't crash at all but produces a result.
If
they suck at coding would *you* trust the result? But would you
*know* they suck?

Yes, I'd know, because I'd be reviewing the code and changes. Sure,
there's more than speed issues, there are bugs and security issues as
well. The point was about the topic matter though.