Tweet
Originally posted by BlackStar
View Post
Have you found any .net or java apps that compare to QT apps in performance? Nope, didn't think so. Funny that you were defending this position (which I was disputing) and seem to have now conceeded it.
Paint.Net has been moving away from GDI+ due to performance issues (source).
Even if it didn't use GDI+, it would have used plain GDI, WPF or maybe D3D/OpenGL - there's no other way to render to screen on win32.
This argument that Paint.Net is using GDI+ so it's not a valid .Net app doesn't make any sense
Yep here it is again, I have no doubt you're getting tired of me calling you out everytime but hopefully you'll stop misrepresting what I have said in future -
Straw man: A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
* Example
Person A claims: Sunny days are good.
Argument Person B: If all days were sunny, we'd never have rain, and without rain, we'd have famine and death. You are obviously wrong.
Problem: B has falsely framed A's claim to imply that A says that only sunny days are good, and has argued against that assertion instead of the assertion A has made.
- but then again neither does anything other you have written.
"If you want a fair analysis you start with a neutral party. Remember the tobacco research that showed that smoking was good for your health? Yeah funded by tobacco companies....lets guess where his wages come from shall we. I do not know him as a person so I cannot judge how impartial he really is and I doubt you do either.
I cannot believe I have to explain something this simple to you."
If this makes no sense to you a discussion is something you should not be attempting and it is simply not worth responding to someone who cannot understand this.
"From the inception intended to show C# in a positive light?" My, are you blinded by hatred.
That is not hatred, that is logic. Can you not see the context? Before the blog has even been written it is in a context of tremendous bias.
"Critical thinking gives due consideration to the evidence, the context of judgment, the relevant criteria for making the judgment well, the applicable methods or techniques for forming the judgment, and the applicable theoretical constructs for understanding the problem and the question at hand. Critical thinking employs not only logic but broad intellectual criteria such as clarity, credibility, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, significance and fairness."
This is something most people learn in high school, explaining this time and again until you can understand it is getting awfully tiresome.
It is obvious that you didn't even make the effort to read the technical analysis - the irony here is that it concludes that C++ is ultimately more efficient than C# (and explains exactly how, where and why).
I ask you directly, can *you* provide a valid technical examination of C++ versus C#? Unless you do at least that much, there's no point in continuing this discussion.
1) I see what you did there! You just moved the goalposts again, conceeding the point that there are no examples of where it can compare to well written C / C++ in real world scenarios and now only accepting a technical examination.
2) The onus is on you to provide evidence (and real world examples) to support your wild claims. I am stating the status quo which is that .net is slower than C / C++ in nearly every instance for well written code. You have yet to prove otherwise. In fact in your later posts you _seem_ to by conceeding this also or at least distancing yourself from your own comments.
3) I see so you've changed the arguement again from QT performance vs Mono/.Net performance to C# vs C++.
4) What exactly are you asking for here? You seriously want me to go through every performance delta in every use case when you haven't even bothered to provide anything to back up your claims? are you kidding?
Provide your own robust performance data of C++/QT vs C#/Mono in real world scenarios (any platform, both if you wish) to back up your wild claims or don't bother. Asking me to "disprove" your ridiculous claims is logically flawed. Oh, as you might be able to tell, I'm a QT developer. The original reason I continued responding to you was because your claims in reference to QT being so "bloated" and "inefficient" (show me something cross platform that is less so?) were ridiculous - especially in the context - in comparison to mono/.net which you seemed to have conceeded also. In light of you conceeding each point you originally made I believe the discussion is over.
Hint: reiterating that .Net is slow without proof won't make your point valid.
If anything, games have much harder performance requirements than desktop applications: fall below 30fps and you are toast! Desktop apps, in comparison, run idle for most of the time.
Comment