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

[Don]

retard wrote:
> Sat, 02 Oct 2010 18:21:53 +0200, Don wrote:
> 
>> retard wrote:
>>> 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.
> 
> I meant that computers become more efficient. I've upgraded my system two 
> times since this discussion last appeared here. If you wait 18 months, the 
> 20 seconds becomes 10 seconds, in 36 months 5 seconds. It's the Moore's 
> law, you know.

Sadly, software seems to be bloating at a rate which is faster than 
Moore's law. Part of my original post noted that it was much slower than 
my old 1MHz Commodore 64 took to boot my development environment from a 
cassette tape! So I still take it as a good sign that the rate of 
bloating is slower than Moore's law.

>> 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.
> 
> How long does it take to start up all those programs on your notebook? 15 
> minutes? I don't even consider Eclipse bloated compared to *these* 
> applications.

Don't remember. I too have upgraded since then. I can say, though, that 
Eclipse was the worst I experienced (the others you mentioned were I 
think more in the 30 second range). Mind you, I never ran Labview on it. 
Labview would probably have been worse.

>> There was just something sloppy in Eclipse's startup code.
> 
> I don't recommend running Eclipse on any machine with less than 1 GB of 
> RAM. It's a well known fact that Java programs require twice as much 
> memory due to garbage collection. Also Eclipse is a rather complex 
> framework. Luckily *all* systems, even the cheapest $100 netbooks have 1 
> GB of RAM!

My laptop had 1GB, so I'm not sure we can blame that. Eclipse was 
perfectly fine once it had loaded. It was only the startup which was slow.