Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Microsoft - The Evil empire -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Robert Winchell who wrote (773)	4/22/1998 5:11:00 PM
From: Dragonfly	Respond to of 1600

You actually changed my mind. Uh-oh, then clearly you don't have the right attitude! :) On the benchmarks, I don't have a handy reference, but it was in Byte and it was a bunch of applications. Hmmm. Anyway, I've also seen live, side by side, demos using comperable machines (in price) and the same application (photoshop) with a stopwatch. (The task was long enough that the stopwatch was a reasonable measurement technique.) Dragonfly

To: Robert Winchell who wrote (773)	4/22/1998 7:51:00 PM
From: Kal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1600

This statistic is highly dubious. The reason is, they include compile/link times in the C++ programmers effort. The actual coding time is virtually the same. According to the developers of LiveBusiness foundation classes (http://www.livebiz.com), which many are personal friends of mine, their programming efficiency is up to 10 times more than with C++. I do not program in java for a living, but I've studied it and done little programs. The absense of pointers makes it a winner for me. I basically abhore C++ for that reason: pointers.