.NET

[SupremeSpod]

Re: a bytecode interpreter is faster than native code...

And who the feck is going to listen to you with your reputation for bulltulipe and your lack of integrity, Threaded?

[threaded]

Re: a bytecode interpreter is faster than native code...

Spodly: Don't clap on your own; someone will throw you a fish.

[DimPrawn]

Re: a bytecode interpreter is faster than native code...

I'd like to point out that .NET is not some @#%$ bytecode INTERPRETER but a very sophisticated JUST IN TIME COMPILER that produces native processor code optimised for that processor (so it will produce code that is tailored for AMD, Intel and use any fancy features the CPU may have).

That's why it leaves Java (spit) for dead in terms of performance and is within a few % of hand crafted C++.

Fecking brilliant.

[xoggoth]

Re: dogs

Quite right mods. This is a serious thread about the merits of .net. You should remove all WS's pervy stuff straight away. I would never dream of posting anything like that personally.

[xoggoth]

Re: a bytecode interpreter is faster than native code...

Just in time is all very well I suppose, but what if there is a short delay while it's compiling?, like somebody spills coffee on the keyboard or something. With so little margin, surely there is a serious danger that some won't get compiled and then you will end up with bits of comments and things in your trading system or what have you? That could get embarassing for the programmer.

[SupremeSpod]

Re: a bytecode interpreter is faster than native code...

Glorified P-Code, the lot of it!

[WageSlave1]

Re: a bytecode interpreter is faster than native code...

Quite right mods. This is a serious thread about the merits of .net. You should remove all WS's pervy stuff straight away. I would never dream of posting anything like that personally.

My stuff is never pervy :rolleyes Just because I was arrested that one time...it was an honest mistake...I was using the camera to take pictures of trains.

[FrancoLondinium]

Re: a bytecode interpreter is faster than native code...

Woke up DP and you all MS liers. JIT was enabled in most of the JVM in 2000-2001.

MS, the biggest lying machine of the world.

I know that even in the .NET Architecture book they still claim this big lie.

Buffoni.

[FrancoLondinium]

Re: a bytecode interpreter is faster than native code...

From a .net architecture book.

"MSIL is an abstract language that is not closely related to any particular brand of operating system or CPU. This means that .NET assemblies do not contain code specific to Microsoft Windows or the Intel Pentium processor."

And you are also supposed to be a 600 quid a day .net contractor. I understand why indians are welcome then.

[dotnetted]

Franco

And you are also supposed to be a 600 quid a day .net contractor. I understand why indians are welcome then.

DP is right Franco, read what he said, he was talking about native code, not MSIL.

Microsoft are not liars, at least not on this matter anyway, and DP and I fully deserve our 600 quid a day. (Not that I get 600 you understand, or know any .Net contractors who do, but that's between me and my agent)

See: What is MSIL / IL? What is JIT? and Compiling MSIL to Native Code

Before you can run Microsoft intermediate language (MSIL), it must be converted by a .NET Framework just-in-time (JIT) compiler to native code, which is CPU-specific code that runs on the same computer architecture as the JIT compiler. Because the common language runtime supplies a JIT compiler for each supported CPU architecture, developers can write a set of MSIL that can be JIT-compiled and run on computers with different architectures. However, your managed code will run only on a specific operating system if it calls platform-specific native APIs, or a platform-specific class library.

Franco is a JAVA contractor and I claim my £5

'Ted