On C/C++ undefined behaviours (there is no "Eclipse")

[Don]

retard wrote:
> Fri, 01 Oct 2010 14:53:04 +0100, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> 
>> On 20/08/2010 22:37, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> "retard"<re at tard.com.invalid>  wrote in message
>>> news:i4mrss$cam$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>>> Fri, 20 Aug 2010 19:04:41 +0200, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What are these Java programs for the desktop that run fast? I haven't
>>>>> encountered any, but maybe that's just because I didn't try them all
>>>>> out. Eclipse takes at least 20 seconds to load on startup on my quad
>>>>> core, that's not very fast. On the other hand, CodeBlocks which is
>>>>> coded in C++ and has  a few dozen plugins installed runs in an
>>>>> instant.
>>>> Now that's a fair comparison! "Crysis runs so slowly but a hello world
>>>> written in Go is SO fast. This must prove that Go is much faster than
>>>> C+ +!"
>>>>
>>>> I think CodeBlocks is one of the most lightweight IDEs out there. Does
>>>> it even have full semantic autocompletion? Eclipse, on the other hand,
>>>> comes with almost everything you can imagine. If you turn off the
>>>> syntax check, Eclipse works just as fast as any native application on
>>>> a modern desktop.
>>> I've tried eclipse with the fancy stuff off, and it's still slower than
>>> C::B or PN2 for me.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> All these comments about Eclipse takes this time to load, or Eclipse is
>> slow when used, etc., are really meaningless unless you tell us
>> something about what actual plugins and features are installed and used.
>>
>> Unlike CodeBlocks which is "a free C++ IDE", Eclipse proper is the
>> Eclipse Platform, which is a platform (duh) and doesn't do anything
>> useful by itself. Particularly since there is not even a standard/single
>> "Eclipse" download: http://www.eclipse.org/downloads/ , unlike
>> Codeblocks. The days were JDT would be the main thing 95% of Eclipse
>> users would use are long gone.
>>
>> So are you using JDT, CDT, Descent, something else? If JDT, do you have
>> extra tools, like the J2EE Web Tools? (these add massive bloat) What
>> about source control plugins, or plugins not provided by the Eclipse
>> Foundation, etc? All of these are a wildcard that can affect
>> performance. For example, I definitely note that sometimes my workspace
>> chokes when I do certain SVN or file related operations (with Subclipse
>> btw, not Subversive).
>> I also noted, when Eclipse 3.6 came out, some sluggishness when working
>> with JDT, even when just typing code (in this case it was very subtle,
>> almost imperceptible, but I still felt it and it was quite annoying). I
>> suspected not JDT, but Mylyn, so I uninstalled it, and now things are
>> back to normal. (there might be a fix or workaround for that issue in
>> Mylyn, but since I don't use it, I didn't bother)
>>
>> I would definitely be quite annoying if Eclipse was not responsive for
>> the vast majority of coding tasks.
>>
>> As for startup time, I hardly care anything about that :
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/
> Re_Eclipse_startup_time_Was_questions_on_PhanTango_merger_was_Merging_Tangobos_into_Tango_60160.html#N60346
>> (except when I'm doing PDE development, but that's a different thing)
> 
> Back then the unhappy user was using a 1 GHz Pentium M notebook. I tried 
> this again. Guess what, the latest Eclipse Helios (3.6.1) took 3.5 (!!!) 
> seconds to start up the whole Java workspace, open few projects and fully 
> initialize the editors etc for the most active project. 

That's good news. Sounds as though they've fixed the startup performance 
bug.

Has the original
> complainer ever used Photoshop, CorelDraw, AutoCad, Maya/3DSMax, Maple/
> MathCad/Mathematica, or some other Real World Programs (tm)? These are 
> all fucking slow. That's how it is: If you need to get the job done, you 
> must use slow programs.

That original poster was me. Yes, I've used all of those programs 
(though not a recent version of CorelDraw). The startup time was 80 
seconds, on the most most minimal standard Eclipse setup I could find. 
MSVC was 3 seconds on the same system. I had expected the times to be 
roughly comparable.

There was just something sloppy in Eclipse's startup code.