Not really. I can choose C++ or even C#. It won't be bigger, and the development cost will be comparable - at least, if we will take two experienced developers, one who knows C++ and one who knows Pike, their efforts to implement something will be comparable. /.../
No way. Something like Roxen CMS would take at least ten times the effort to implement in C++. It's not that Pike is "great" and C++ "sucks", it's that C++ is statically typed and compiled whereas Pike is not. Languages like Perl, Python and Lisp would be comparable to Pike for an application of that kind.
/ Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS
Previous text:
2003-02-27 03:55: Subject: Re: 64 bit ints
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:20:01AM +0100, Martin Nilsson (har bott i google) @ Pike (-) developers forum wrote:
The information that you want to store is +0x80000000, which in effect is 33 bits. You could either do it explicitly by using 33 bits for data storage or you could flag your storage elsewhere with one bit.
Sorry, but it seems that you misunderstood me. When I say "to store 0x80000000" it means, actually, to store 32 bits, without any signs.
How it _may_ be interpreted (in comparision and other operators) is another story.
You don't. Luckily you'll never end up in that situation. If you don't believe me then high level languages isn't the thing for you. Pick one with a lower degree of abstraction that feel comfortable with.
I need a mix, actually. To use higher level of abstraction but to control this level as I wish, and whenever I wish. Something that look like a "black box" is not for me. I would accept Pike unconditionally but... there are a huge performance problems in some cases.
So I resort to write whatever needs performance in C, and controlling of this - in Pike. My dream is embeddable Pike - so I can wrap it into C (no, no, thanks - I dislike to wrap C into Pike).
Your source will be bigger, your development cost measured in time and effort will be bigger but so will your control over details.
Not really. I can choose C++ or even C#. It won't be bigger, and the development cost will be comparable - at least, if we will take two experienced developers, one who knows C++ and one who knows Pike, their efforts to implement something will be comparable. And, in this case, C++ will win - it is more known and more stable (there is a standard, at least - and there is no standard for Pike), and it is _faster_ (remember - we are talking about _experienced_ developers, so they know what they are doing, and Pike will never beat C/C++ in speed).
Regards, /Al
/ Brevbäraren