Originally posted by kraftman
View Post
Let me look for some quotes I wrote about Java:
Here :
Source: http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...ht=#post325362
At last, you seem to know to insult everyone, and I think that Java fans out-there would say that are many instances when Java is faster than C: http://scribblethink.org/Computer/javaCbenchmark.html
I know that NBody (in the your shown case) is not multi-core aware, but even the previous month at work, I had some native code and as it had to do a massive processing task (basically to crack passwords), moving into multi-core was done much easier with Java code and at the end, just using basically "Java -server" and by using all cores it was running basically 6-8 times faster. Of course 1 core C++ vs 4 HT (4 x 2) cores Java.
I have no issues with Qt per-se, but the development cycle in C# is most of the times faster than the QMake cycle in Qt. If you can afford Resharper (or CodeRush) you will get static code analysis that warrants higher quality code.
About Qt and issues I faced:
- MSSQL uses a sub-par database driver (http://doc.qt.digia.com/stable/sql-driver.html)
- also Qt is slower in calling signals than C# code and sometimes it has issues with thread safety: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1...nd-performance
- if you use a Metacity Window Manager (at least in Qt 4.4 cycle) there were bugs in creating Windows. Qt was stested against KWM mostly (I had issues at my work regarding those issues)
About Qt and issues I faced:
- MSSQL uses a sub-par database driver (http://doc.qt.digia.com/stable/sql-driver.html)
- also Qt is slower in calling signals than C# code and sometimes it has issues with thread safety: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1...nd-performance
- if you use a Metacity Window Manager (at least in Qt 4.4 cycle) there were bugs in creating Windows. Qt was stested against KWM mostly (I had issues at my work regarding those issues)
What Qt offers and Mono doesn't?
- if we talk about the runtime part, I can say that Mono offers more:
+ GC: simply means that you write simpler algorithms and you don't look for reference counted cycles
+ dynamic runtime with inline caching ( http://stackoverflow.com/a/7478557 ),
+ very easy to embed plugins (compare with the QtPlugin, or with dlopen/LoadLibrary mess),
+ a very easy way to do network remoting, Xml processing, class & fied annotations that can work with reflection to automate configuration in complex systems
What Qt offers easily:
+ C++ integration with foreign codebases (that are old ones)
+ Two paradigms for controls: QWidget and Qml that are both working cross platform
+ arguably a bit better performance
PyQt offers most of Mono (excluding the toolkit part) with a performance hit if you don't use PyPy and no static checking (meanining performance hit and bugs in typing).
- if we talk about the runtime part, I can say that Mono offers more:
+ GC: simply means that you write simpler algorithms and you don't look for reference counted cycles
+ dynamic runtime with inline caching ( http://stackoverflow.com/a/7478557 ),
+ very easy to embed plugins (compare with the QtPlugin, or with dlopen/LoadLibrary mess),
+ a very easy way to do network remoting, Xml processing, class & fied annotations that can work with reflection to automate configuration in complex systems
What Qt offers easily:
+ C++ integration with foreign codebases (that are old ones)
+ Two paradigms for controls: QWidget and Qml that are both working cross platform
+ arguably a bit better performance
PyQt offers most of Mono (excluding the toolkit part) with a performance hit if you don't use PyPy and no static checking (meanining performance hit and bugs in typing).
You:
Mono on Linux is desirable for m$ only. Linux will become the main platform when it gets games, so m$ wants to pollute it with mono. Ever heard of m$ patents FUD? Did you ever wondered where those 200+ patents violations lay? They lay in mono. Just say fu*k you Icaza, m$ and have a nice day.
Originally posted by directhex
View Post
Comment