A tool that suggests optimized logic for a piece of code/module/function
in [General Programming]
|
Prev: Best way to learn ... need some help
Next: A tool that suggests optimized logic for a piece of code/module/function
From: Nick Keighley on 18 Jan 2010 05:34 On 15 Jan, 16:43, dj3va...(a)csclub.uwaterloo.ca.invalid wrote: > In article <5de738e1-b64c-470c-a097-4020a2397...(a)j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, > Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >On 13 Jan, 16:43, dj3va...(a)csclub.uwaterloo.ca.invalid wrote: > >> In article <4b4def88$0$22938$e4fe5...(a)news.xs4all.nl>, > >> [Jongware] <so...(a)no.spam.net> wrote: > >> >Aha -- wouldn't the logical end point be a programming language where > >> >you type "word processor", save it as source, compile, and have a word > >> >processor? > > >> Why bother to compile it? Just have it interpret on-the-fly. > >> That way you could even run it in interactive mode, and it's > >> sufficiently high-level that even non-programmers could usefully use > >> it. > > >> Unix people call this a "shell". > > >I'm guessing you're trying to be funny/ironic. But in case you aren't, > >Unix has dozens of stranglely incompatible Command Line Interfaces > >that Unix people call "shells". None of them are word processors. > > Right. > But all of them have the property that I can get a word processor by > typing the name of a word processor that's installed on the system. I thought you were claiming Unix uniquely had some sort of VHLL. Apart from the weird embedded ones, don't *all* OSs have a way to run the programs that are installed on them? Wasn't jongware suggesting something even more magical? The VHLL that can create appications that aren't stored on the machine? > My point was that the "primitives" provided by a shell (the programs > installed on the system) give a pretty good approximation to > [Jongware]'s suggestion of "type 'word processor' and get a word > processor".
From: Lie Ryan on 20 Jan 2010 00:19 On 01/18/10 21:34, Nick Keighley wrote: > Wasn't jongware suggesting something even more magical? The VHLL that > can create appications that aren't stored on the machine? app-get, emerge, yum?
From: toby on 24 Jan 2010 19:28 On Jan 18, 5:34 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 15 Jan, 16:43, dj3va...(a)csclub.uwaterloo.ca.invalid wrote: > > > > > > > In article <5de738e1-b64c-470c-a097-4020a2397...(a)j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, > > Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >On 13 Jan, 16:43, dj3va...(a)csclub.uwaterloo.ca.invalid wrote: > > >> In article <4b4def88$0$22938$e4fe5...(a)news.xs4all.nl>, > > >> [Jongware] <so...(a)no.spam.net> wrote: > > >> >Aha -- wouldn't the logical end point be a programming language where > > >> >you type "word processor", save it as source, compile, and have a word > > >> >processor? > > > >> Why bother to compile it? Just have it interpret on-the-fly. > > >> That way you could even run it in interactive mode, and it's > > >> sufficiently high-level that even non-programmers could usefully use > > >> it. > > > >> Unix people call this a "shell". > > > >I'm guessing you're trying to be funny/ironic. But in case you aren't, > > >Unix has dozens of stranglely incompatible Command Line Interfaces > > >that Unix people call "shells". None of them are word processors. > > > Right. > > But all of them have the property that I can get a word processor by > > typing the name of a word processor that's installed on the system. > > I thought you were claiming Unix uniquely had some sort of VHLL. Compared to C, bash *is* a VHLL. Rewrite this in C: grep -i blah.log |cut -d ' ' -f 4,7 |cut -c 2-12,23-36 |sort |uniq -c - i > Apart > from the weird embedded ones, don't *all* OSs have a way to run the > programs that are installed on them? > > Wasn't jongware suggesting something even more magical? The VHLL that > can create appications that aren't stored on the machine? > > > My point was that the "primitives" provided by a shell (the programs > > installed on the system) give a pretty good approximation to > > [Jongware]'s suggestion of "type 'word processor' and get a word > > processor".
From: toby on 24 Jan 2010 19:31 On Jan 11, 3:07 pm, karthikbalaguru <karthikbalagur...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > There are certain editors that highlight > the syntax/color for datatypes/variables > or comments etc. > > Similarly, > Is there a tool for C language that > could suggest an optimized/alternate > programming logic for the function that > is written ? IMHO the most effective output it could make is: "Are you really sure the best tool for this task is C?" > > The optimized/alternate logic can be > suggested as soon as we finish coding > for one function or it can be suggested > as soon as the code is compiled/parsed > by that tool. > > It will be even more helpful if that tool > also provides the cycle counts, cache > usage, cache misses and lines of code > also. > > It would be better if that tool has an > option to enable / disable this feature > either through compile time or some > other configurations. > > Any ideas ? > > Thx in advans, > Karthik Balaguru
From: karthikbalaguru on 26 Jan 2010 00:20
On Jan 25, 5:31 am, toby <t...(a)telegraphics.com.au> wrote: > On Jan 11, 3:07 pm, karthikbalaguru <karthikbalagur...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > There are certain editors that highlight > > the syntax/color for datatypes/variables > > or comments etc. > > > Similarly, > > Is there a tool for C language that > > could suggest an optimized/alternate > > programming logic for the function that > > is written ? > > IMHO the most effective output it could make is: "Are you really sure > the best tool for this task is C?" > My query is 'A tool that suggests optimized logic for a piece of code/module/function' . I am looking for a tool that suggests optimized logic for various modules/functions written in C language. The tool can be made of any language. > > > The optimized/alternate logic can be > > suggested as soon as we finish coding > > for one function or it can be suggested > > as soon as the code is compiled/parsed > > by that tool. > > > It will be even more helpful if that tool > > also provides the cycle counts, cache > > usage, cache misses and lines of code > > also. > > > It would be better if that tool has an > > option to enable / disable this feature > > either through compile time or some > > other configurations. > > > Any ideas ? > > > Thx in advans, > > Karthik Balaguru- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Karthik Balaguru |