"James Kanze" <james.kanze@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186132767.837930.163280@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 2, 8:21 pm, "JohnQ" <johnqREMOVETHISprogram...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> "James Kanze" <james.ka...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> > news:1186041917.196465.240570@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> > On Aug 1, 12:58 pm, "JohnQ" <johnqREMOVETHISprogram...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > "James Kanze" <james.ka...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:1185952821.427559.72500@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Aug 1, 1:29 am, "JohnQ" <johnqREMOVETHISprogram...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > "Geo" <g...@remm.org> wrote in message
> > > [...]
> > > > > 'no padding or aligning allowed', would that be a
> > > > > requirement, if so it ain't gonna be very portable !!!!
> > > > It will be when hardware vendors get their acts together.
> > > "They have their acts together. It's you that don't seem to
> > > understand."
> > > I won't be buying that Brooklyn bridge either, thank you.
>
> > "You won't be writing any good software, either."

> More propoganda.

"More reality. I've been at this business long enough to
recognize incompetence when I see it. If you don't understand
the necessity of marshalling, or of different processor
architectures, you're never going to write any quality software."

You're marshalling everywhere, all the time and calling me stupid? Have you
considered getting some bran in your diet? Maybe you wouldn't be so ornery
then. :P

> > > > Until then, I'll just byte-align on WinTel
> > > "And pay an extremely high performance penalty for it."
> > > You're assuming that byte-aligning struct members implies non-optimum
> > > alignment. That's a wrong assumption. And perhaps you're thinking that
> > > everything has to be byte-aligned or not, which isn't the case either.
> > > "More than a few applications can't afford that."
> > > There is no penalty if you define your stucts correctly so that the
> > > data
> > > members align.
>
> > Which, of course, depends on the machine.

> Designate one as primary.

"Primary what? Different people have different requirements, so
there are different architectures out there to solve them. I
work mainly on large scale servers, and I certainly don't want
to be forced to use an ARM architecture, just because it's the
most widespread. (I don't even really know the ARM
architecture, so little is it relevant to my field of work,
where Sparc is by far the dominant architecture.)"

Nevermind, you don't get it.

> > > Secondly, the vast majority of applications are not
> > > performance constrained. Indeed, they are IO constrained if
> > > anything, so not having to marshal will speed up the program
> > > (on the "native" platform).
>
> > You always have to marshall. Objects aren't just arrays of
> > bytes, regardless of what you think.

> "Objects" has too much connotation. You can make something
> that is "just an array of bytes".

"Not really. Not anything very useful, anyway."

You fo right ahead and keep maintaining the complexity. That's your
perogative.

> Indeed, that is fundamental and any language that doesn't
> facilitate that is defficient (or trying to sell compilers).

"Or trying to support users who are writing real applications,
and need to manage complexity."

Broken record.

John