Had another 48hr game jam this weekend...

PauloPinto pjmlp at progtools.org
Mon Sep 16 23:30:01 PDT 2013


On Tuesday, 17 September 2013 at 05:48:21 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> On Tuesday, 17 September 2013 at 05:32:28 UTC, Manu wrote:
>> In my experience, more memory == slower. If you care about 
>> performance, the
>> only time it's acceptable to use more memory is if your data 
>> structures are
>> as efficient as they can get, and the alternative is reading 
>> off the hard
>> drive.
>> Bandwidth isn't free, cache is only so big, and logic to 
>> process and make
>> use of so much memory isn't free either. It usually just 
>> suggests
>> inefficient (or just lazy) data structures, which often also 
>> implies
>> inefficient processing logic.
>> And the more memory an app uses, the higher chance of invoking 
>> the page
>> file, which is a mega-killer.
>>
>
> I do agree as this is generally true. However, the problem 
> isn't really cache size or bandwidth, but rather latency. We 
> know how to increase bandwith or cache size, but the first one 
> come at a cost with no big benefit, and the second come at 
> increase of cost and increase of latency. What is capping the 
> perf here is really latency.
>
> That being said, less memory == more of your working set in 
> cache => faster program.
>
>> Dunno what to tell you. My VS instance is pretty light.
>>
>
> Yup, VS is one of these program that microsoft did better than 
> the alternative :D


Yet in 2013 still doesn't do color printing with syntax 
highlight, like any MS-DOS IDE used to offer around MS-DOS 5/6 
timeframe, unless one installs third party plugins.

And the refactoring tools are a joke compared to Java IDEs, 
unless one installs a third party tool.

Even QtCreator has better C/C++ refactoring tools out of the box.


Visual Studio is a very good IDE, but in some areas it is surely 
lacking.

--
Paulo


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list