RE: Re: Xplproject.org.uk

["John B" <home-automation@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

---- Original Message ----
From: Steve Morgan <smorgo@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 18:33:05 -0000
To: <ukha_xpl@xxxxxxx>

>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > C# is out of the question, as it is still a .NET language,
> > and therefore still needs to be interpreted by the CLR at
> > runtime, so will offer little or no performance benefits over
VB.NET.
> > You need to use good old C or C++.
>
> Can I just clarify a misunderstanding, here. The .NET languages
compile to
> IL, which is a byte-code similar to that produced by a Java compiler.
> However, the .NET CLR further compiles this to native machine code on
first
> execution (or in advance if you use NGEN).

Apologies - I was actually referring to the JIT compiler - must think
before typing :-)

> Benchmarks suggest that C# code
> is within around 10% of comparable C++ code (though YMMV). VB6 and its
> predecessors compiled to P-Code which was interpreted at runtime. The
> comment about relative performance of C# & VB.NET is still broadly
true, of
> course.
>
> C# performance is such that I am able to build a significant
proportion of
> some of the governments most mission-critical systems with it.

Agreed - we use .NET for some very heavily loaded business-critical apps,
but having said that, none of them are performing CPU-intensive graphics
rendering.

The process of rendering a screen to an MVP is very CPU intensive, and I
just can't help but think that a developer writing his code in C should be
able to do a much better job of optimising their code than the .NET CLR.

Though I guess we won't know for sure until we actually try it out.

Regards,

John



xPL Links: http://www.xplproject.org.uk http://www.xplhal.com http://www.xpl.myby.co.uk
To Post a Message: ukha_xpl@xxxxxxx
To Subscribe:  ukha_xpl-subscribe@xxxxxxx
To Unsubscribe:  ukha_xpl-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx