Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Does Linux Need Another Commercial Compiler?

Cliff posted more than 12 years ago | from the stuff-to-discuss dept.

Programming 261

Lurks asks: "My company, Codeplay, is set up to develop new and innovative compiler technology for the games industry. Our C compiler, VectorC, is a cutting edge vectorizing compiler aimed at games and multimedia applications that demand high performance generally through hand-optimized assembly. I'm writing to ask the burning question on our minds, is it worth porting VectorC to Linux? In fact, we're already targeting Linux as part of the PlayStation 2 version albeit not generating x86 code of course. A Linux port would see us converge this work with our Win32 compiler and such an undertaking would certainly be popular with our Linux loving techies! One caveat worth mentioning now is that the current version of VectorC is plain C only. 2.0 with full C++ compatibility is due early next year."

"Of course, commercial realities will rear their ugly head and we must consider that Linux isn't perhaps an obvious choice for a compiler aimed at games and multimedia applications. Given the certain degree of hostility towards commercial closed-source products of this nature, perhaps the idea should be consigned to the pet-project back burner for the future rather than rolled out as a commercial product?"

cancel ×

261 comments

Well.. can you clarify some things? (4, Insightful)

mindstrm (20013) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395203)

Do you mean converting your compiler to run under linux, or making it able to compile code FOR linux (and if so, under what platform).

IF it's a playstation/games developmetn compiler.... then the only reason to port it to linux is if you want to offer linux as a development environment for playstation games. Is it? What's the benefit?

Re:Well.. can you clarify some things? (2, Informative)

Lurks (526137) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395227)

Running on Linux to compile FOR Linux x86.

Re:Well.. can you clarify some things? (1)

nusuth (520833) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395230)

It works under w32 and compiles for w32 too, not just playstation. And although the company (at least one guy from it at aceshardware forums) does not like to promote vectorc for scientific programming it is at least as useful for serious purposes too. I guess he is talking about a compiler both the running and the target platform is linux. It is (compiled code is) damn fast under w32, I'm considering buying or the intel compiler, which I haven't been able to test yet.

Scientific apps (was Re:Well.. can you clarify...) (2, Informative)

pastie (80784) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395258)


And although the company (at least one guy from it at aceshardware forums) does not like to promote vectorc for scientific programming it is at least as useful for serious purposes too.


Scientific applications usually need more than single-precision arithmetic, while the vector instructions available in 3D-Now! and SSE are only single-precision. SSE2 has double-precision as well, so it may be more useful on the Pentium4 for scientific applications :)

Games generally aren't so picky about the precision, and so more can be done to optimize without breaking the code.

Re:Scientific apps (2, Informative)

nusuth (520833) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395291)

you are right on double precision thing, but that is not all vectorc does. scheulding is much better than alternatives (remider: I haven't yet tested intel's compiler) and software prefetching, cpu dependent cache management etc. are also important factors. I experienced huge speedups with double precision x87 code on my benchmarks too. Actually if you are not using the same values over and over such that you can keep them in registers for a long time, 3dnow! is only a bit faster than x87 code on athlon. Cache managment and instruction scheulding is all that counts under moderate data loads.

Re:Scientific apps (was Re:Well.. can you clarify. (3, Insightful)

Lurks (526137) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395297)

Scientific applications usually need more than single-precision arithmetic ... so it may be more useful on the Pentium4 for scientific applications :)

You're obviously quite right. We get a surprising amount of interest from the scientific/academic community. High tech compilers that vectorize are nothing new in this area, but generally they're Fortran compilers for mainframes etc.

I'm guessing that with the power of desktops these days and the prevalence of C/C++, micro based scientific computing is looking more attractive.

It's quite spooky to see all these high energy research labs (Eek!) in our web logs. I wonder how many of these people understand the precision issues with most vector units out there.

Perhaps the Pentium 4 will become a standard choice for scientific computing because of the double precision cable vector unit. Just as well we put a lot of effort into SSE2.

Mat 'Lurks' Bettinson, Codeplay Ltd.

Re:Scientific apps (was Re:Well.. can you clarify. (3, Interesting)

nusuth (520833) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395323)

Vectorc guys, I get the impression you don't know what you are producing :) [time to complete] Latest (relased) Borland compiler, full optimizations on: 142 Hand optimized c code (according to athlon optimization guide) with latest (relased)borland compiler, full optimizations on: 100 (ref) Vectorc 1.1 demo single precision 3dnow!, optimization hints: 46 Vectorc 1.1 demo, double precision x87: 48 Real code snippet from a real application. Do I have to say more? Normally one wouldn't use a borland suite for high performance critical code, but not everyone can afford to have a high-tech scientific compiler.

Re:Scientific apps (was Re:Well.. can you clarify. (2, Interesting)

Lurks (526137) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395395)

I can't comment on what you're talking about without knowing what you're doing. Suffice to say those results aren't indicative of our performance.

So yes, you do have to say more or at least I'd like you to. Drop a mail to support@codeplay.com and we'll work out what's going on.

BTW we released 1.2 last week which is a substantial upgrade from 1.1. In particular Pentium 4 support in 1.1 was very limited.

Mat 'Lurks' Bettinson, Codeplay Ltd.

Re:Scientific apps (was Re:Well.. can you clarify. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2395340)

I work for a company [plogic.com] that develops applications for high performance computing clusters (aka beowulf). In addition to application development, we provide turn-key cluster solutions. Meaning, we act as a scientific cluster technology integrator. Also, we only use linux!

This said, we have been benchmarking the Intel C compilers (under Linux) for sometime on the Pentium4. We are getting some great results with the Intel compiler on the Pentium4, although there are some usability issues that intel is working through; but speedup is excellent.

Now, given that VectorC can make use of parallelism inherent in some C codes on multiple x86 architectures (SSE, SSE2, 3dNow), I could see the availability of VectorC for Linux as being a big win for us. Especially if it can give the Intel compiler a run for it's money on the Pentium4!

Ok, as a side note we resell Portland Group Compilers, so our customers will pay for damn good compilers!

I really hope codeplay decides to throw some developers at porting VectorC to Linux. I can be reached via email at: msnitzer@plogic.com

I look forward to hearing more on Linux offerings from Codeplay in the future.

Re:Scientific apps (was Re:Well.. can you clarify. (1)

JanneM (7445) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395410)

While the game market is very small on Linux (at least for another year or two), and many game writers on Linux are hobbyists that probably won't be inclined or able to pay the seat licenses for your compiler, there are other, related fields where such a compiler can be of great use. Renderfarms, for instance, are moving over to Linux more and more, and would be a natural target for your product.

Even greater would be if your compiler could be adapted for scientific work (I have a colleague who seems to be willing to sell his firstborn to speed up his object recognition software). Those kinds of applications (lots and lots of filters) should be natural targets for you compiler as well, if precision can be controlled.

/Janne

Get some PRIORITIES (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2395205)

The worst terrorist attack in recorded history occurred just over three weeks ago, and you people are discussing how your company, Codeplay, is set up to develop new and innovative compiler technology for the games industry and how your C compiler, VectorC, is a cutting edge vectorizing compiler aimed at games and multimedia applications that demand high performance generally through hand-optimized assembly???? My *god*, people, GET SOME PRIORITIES!

The bodies of 200,000+ dead people could give a good god damn about your stupid companies, your commercial compilers, your childish Lego models, your nerf toys and lack of a "fun" workplace, your Everquest/Diablo/D&D addiction, or any of the other ways you are "getting on with your life".

Re:Get some PRIORITIES (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2395218)

The worst terrorist attack in recorded history occurred just over three weeks ago, and you guy are trolling how his company, Codeplay, is set up to develop new and innovative compiler technology for the games industry and how your C compiler, VectorC, is a cutting edge vectorizing compiler aimed at games and multimedia applications that demand high performance generally through hand-optimized assembly???? My *god*, man, GET SOME PRIORITIES!

The bodies of 200,000+ dead people could give a good god damn about you trolling of stupid companies, commercial compilers, childish Lego models, nerf toys and lack of a "fun" workplace, your Everquest/Diablo/D&D addiction, or any of the other ways you are "getting on with your troll life".

Re:Get some PRIORITIES (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2395225)

The worst terrorist attack in recorded history occurred just over three weeks ago, and you people are discussing how your company, Codeplay, is set up to develop new and innovative compiler technology for the games industry and how your C compiler, VectorC, is a cutting edge vectorizing compiler aimed at games and multimedia applications that demand high performance generally through hand-optimized assembly???? My *god*, people, GET SOME PRIORITIES!

The bodies of 200,000+ dead people could give a good god damn about your stupid companies, your commercial compilers, your childish Lego models, your nerf toys and lack of a "fun" workplace, your Everquest/Diablo/D&D addiction, or any of the other ways you are "getting on with your life".

Re:Get some PRIORITIES (0, Offtopic)

lurwas (518856) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395221)

If you don't let your life go on, your letting the terrorists win....

Re:Get some PRIORITIES (-1, Offtopic)

grepnyc (442959) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395232)

Except that there are about 7000 dead. Not 200,000.

Getting on with life involves different things for different people. For example, some folks may find comfort in spending more time with their families and friends, some lose themselves in their work, and some carry on with their hobbies and interests. Whatever it is that a person needs to do in order to "carry on" and try to put some of the pain behind them is their choice.

Why be critical? People are aware of the heavy loss of life, and the implications of terrorism and violence coming to North America. The best way, IMO, to thumb our noses at those who would destroy our way of life is to continue with our way of life. Even if it means porting a compiler to our favorite OS, playing D&D or Quake, or ordering the latest Star Wars related Lego set [starwars.com] . The Tantive IV looks pretty cool.

pressure/grep

rm -f /bin/laden

Re:Get some PRIORITIES (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2395363)

You need to move on.

Sounds good (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2395210)

Sounds great, but I doubt there would be that many paying customers.

Linux users seem to be in general pretty much opposed to paying for anything.

Re:Sounds good (1)

Lurks (526137) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395254)

Sounds great, but I doubt there would be that many paying customers.
That's my (limited) understanding too. Fortunately we wouldn't have to sell many copies to cover costs since we're most of the way there already.

If there was a torrent of 'How dare you!' type posts then that'd be telling us not to bother. :)

Mat 'Lurks' Bettinson, Codeplay Ltd.

Re:Sounds good (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2395292)

I don't think you'll see too many "How Dare You"
posts - what you will see is a good number of
"Yawn - why do we need this?" and "I wouldn't
buy it - but I think you should port it anyway".

The fact is that even the very best optimising
compiler is only going to buy you about the same
performance increase as waiting six months and
letting Moores law do the work.

Anyone who is developing OpenSourced software had
better be sure that they'll get the needed speed
from vanilla GCC because their users will only
be using GCC. Hence your market is probably
limited to commercial closed-source software
that *needs* that small additional speed boost.

Hence only commercial games companies who support
Linux. That's a VERY small audience. I don't see
how you could ever recoup your costs. Maybe you
should give it away for free and hope to get a
huge wave of enthusiasm for the product that
would spill over into sales for the Windoze
version?

Re:Sounds good (1)

motorsabbath (243336) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395392)

People requiring an optimised compiler for x86 will be happy to pay for it. Cheap clustering and ease of maitenance is pushing linux more and more into the calculations world, sheer data-crunching for physcial and electrical models and what not. gcc is a great compiler, but it seems less than optimized relative to (say) Metware on a PowerPC box. It doesnt always generate fast code.

The more commercial apps for linux the better! I've already spent more money on software (applix, games) than before I switched to a free opsys. And at work we spend lots (*lots*) of money on number-crunching software for linux...

Re:Sounds good (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2395255)

I think you are wrong about Linux users. The problem is that many professional developer tools are very expensive for the independent mom and pop shop. Really good compilers and CASE tools can run into the tens of thousands of dollars, expenses which can not be justified for companies working on smaller contracts. Many Linux developers are jack-of-all-trade consultants doing contract work for small and mid-sized business. Programming most likely is only one aspect of the services which they provide.

Re:Sounds good (1)

MaxQuordlepleen (236397) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395286)

Linux users seem to be in general pretty much opposed to paying for anything.

Only partially true. I think you're right that Linux hobbyists are reluctant to pay for anything, just as a hobbyist is more likely to be running a warez version of Windows 2000 Server.

A commercial enterprise is going to spend the money where they have to. Else how do you explain DB/2, Oracle and Notes server for Linux?

Now, asking how many companies are really using Linux in planned, approved production (as opposed to techies setting up some rogue server) is a legitimate question...

Re:Sounds good (2)

Codifex Maximus (639) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395335)

Hmm... I don't know about you but... I've bought quite a bit of software for Linux and a gob of books.

Codifex

That's not entirely true (1)

RichiP (18379) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395386)

I have no angst against commercial software. My problem is unfair tactics and proprietary software aimed at locking others out. This is a compiler, folks! Unless they start "extending" C or the ELF format, it's actually a good idea.

For the record, I've bought and paid for 4 Linux games and am evaluating CodeWeaver's plugin. I know other people who are also willing to pay for good Linux software (I've already made my willingness to pay for RogerWilco for Linux to the developers). So let's not be hasty saying Linux users' won't go for it

Stephen King, author, dead at 54 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2395211)


I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Horror/Sci Fi writer Stephen King was found dead in his Maine home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

Imagine... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2395214)

Imagine a Beowful cluster of these!

Their advert.. (0, Redundant)

Mr Thinly Sliced (73041) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395215)

Have a peek at the advert on their homepage [codeplay.com] .

Nice parody of the Ronseal ad seen in the uk a while back.

Mr Spams

Re:Their advert.. (1)

hereticmessiah (416132) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395397)

It's still on there in Ireland and in the UK.

There's Only So Much It Can Do (0, Flamebait)

Lethyos (408045) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395222)

He says it's an optimizing compiler for hand-tuned assembly? What's the point? So basically, it's just another compiler, period. I have an idea, how about we just use GCC with the -mcpu=i686 and -march=i686 flags instead of paying for this.

Shame on /. story posters, this "story" is just a shameless plug.

Read again moron... you should be moded down... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2395228)

...for karma whoring first post attempt...

Re:There's Only So Much It Can Do (2, Informative)

Lurks (526137) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395240)

So basically, it's just another compiler, period.
No, it isn't. It's a high performance auto-vectorizing compiler. The only other auto-vectorizing compiler is Intel's and that's a) So limited in what it will vectorize so as to be of little practical use and b) only vectorizes for SSE oddly enough.
I have an idea, how about we just use GCC with the -mcpu=i686 and -march=i686 flags instead of paying for this.
All due respect but VectorC blows away highly optimizing compilers like MSVC and Intel C/C++ when it comes to vectorization, let alone GCC. Now we're not saying you have to pay for this, it's most likely you do not have a need for what VectorC is good at. It most certainly is not aimed at general compiling ala GCC. It's an alternative to hand-coding assembly language when high performance is necessary. Admittedly my story could have been a bit more descriptive here but I wanted to keep it short.
Shame on /. story posters, this "story" is just a shameless plug.
Or maybe it was actually gauging the waters exactly as I said!. We have no products under Linux so 'plugging' here under this topic would be fairly pointed. So cynical some people! Mat 'Lurks' Bettinson, Codeplay Ltd.

Re:There's Only So Much It Can Do (2)

Naikrovek (667) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395275)

its probably best to leave comments like that dude's alone, Lurks.

He just wants to stir some shit. he quite obviously has no clue what he's talking about anyway.

stick to reading the posts & not participating in that guy's method of having fun.

--
jeremiah();

Re:There's Only So Much It Can Do (2)

mindstrm (20013) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395243)

He means its' a compiler to be used in situations where you would traditionally do hand-optimized assembly.

I'm at 50, what do you expect me to do? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2395249)

I am at 49 karma points now, actually... I gotta make bad posts in order to drive my karma down in order to gain the incentive to actually post intelligent comments again.

*smacks forehead* (1, Flamebait)

Lethyos (408045) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395257)

I should not have made that post anonymous! Well, this will drive down my karma points for me... :)

Visit CmdrTaco's home page! [goatse.cx]

Re:*smacks forehead* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2395333)

... well deserved.

What's needed (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2395231)

Yes, a high performance compiler would be welcome if:
  • The price is not out of reach of the masses.
  • It can compile the Linux kernel itself.
  • It generates smaller/faster executables.
  • It was compliant with the latest standards.
GCC is OK but it is not that great on the IA32 architecture. If you can demonstrate a significant improvement over GCC, you'd have a winner, provided most of the above requirements can be met.

Re:What's needed (1)

nick-less (307628) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395405)


It can compile the Linux kernel itself.


I dont know if it will ever be able to compile the linux kernel, but I used VectorC in one of my projects and it did improve the performance significantly without compiling the whole thing.

As it is a plain C and not a C++ compiler I needed to create wrappers for some cpu intensitive routines, compiled them with VectorC and gained a pretty good speedup.

Since asm coding is not my daily work it would have been taken significantly longer to write MMX routines by hand.
The vectorc version I used for this task was only 150 bucks and I easily saved me the equivalent of its price in working hours...

A good idea (0)

lurwas (518856) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395237)

Being a programmer in the gaming industry myself, I would like to say that its probably a good idea. Linux is probably the best server operating system we have, and optimizing servers can be as important as optimizing the clients. As for the cost, this product isn't directed to the mainstream, it's directed to gaming companies, that are thinking about moving from Micrsoft Visual C++, to a faster compiler...

Linux != x86 (2, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395238)

You appear to be equating Linux with x86. This is incorrect. Debian GNU/Linux is available now on half a dozen architectures with another half dozen ports well underway.

You also need to understand that the Linux community is very diverse. The hostility to commercial products that you have seen comes from people who don't represent the majority: no one does that (except perhaps Linus).

Goddamn! More Ad Slashdot! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2395241)

I am also in the early alpha stages of developing a C/C++/COBOL compiler for GNU/Linux that produces code 1000% faster than GNU/GCC. Although I am in the early stages of development and have not written any code yet, please send me your venture capital cheques.

Intended Audience (3, Informative)

MaestroSartori (146297) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395244)

For those who don't know much about it, VectorC is a compiler for targetting fairly specific types of system. Namely those with a bit of SIMD like your P3/P4/etc ,or small-scale parallelism like the PS2 (is there an XBox-specific version to help with shaders yet? dunno).

Anyway, I can see this not going down hugely well on Linux. Apart from the commercial thing, which is a big turnoff to many of the free-as-in-beer users ;o) Why? Well, I just don't see a huge market of Linux users with the type of processors which get the advantage from that kind of compiling. Cross-compiling for PS2 yeah, we do that in my office (though not from Linux). But one of the big selling points of Linux is that it works on lower-end processors, which don't have SIMD.

Anyway, its a good compiler, if you need it. Just think about whether you do or not...

It may be one of it's selling points, but... (2)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395400)

...but many (I'd venture to say most...) of the users HAVE a P3/P4/Athlon/etc. machine in the first place. Don't assume that because it's one of it's big selling points that it's not used on other machines or that because it's popular with the free-beer crowd that others (like game developers or commercial distributions) won't be interested in it.

Wrong assumptions lead to wrong conclusions.

Think about the embedded market. (2)

Polo (30659) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395247)

If you have applications in the embedded world, then you probably have a market. They won't care about the cost. A compiler is a non-recurring cost. Linux is also non-recurring. In the embedded world, lots of software *is* a recurring cost: operating systems, protocols, webservers, etc...

Now why isn't purify ported to Linux...

Purify For Linux? (2)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395261)

Hasn't it been ported to Linux? I seem to recall the Evil Satellite TV Company I was working for evaluating the cost of Purify for their embedded Linux development and then rejecting it due to the cost (Which was something like 10 grand per seat.) Maybe it was some other product, but I'm pretty sure they said Purify.

No, but Insure++ is available for it... (2)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395404)

And Insure++ is their primary competitor (nearly everyone else is licensing stuff from Parasoft for thier bounds/leak checkers...).

Re:Purify For Linux? (2)

Lumpish Scholar (17107) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395413)

"At this time, Rational has not declared any plans regarding Purify, PureCoverage or Quantify support for Linux on 32-bit/64-bit Intel platforms. [rational.com] "

(From elsewhere on the page: IA-64 Linux support is more likely?)

I don't know what a vanilla Unix Purify license goes for (my employer has a negotiated lower rate), but it's less than $10K US. It is several thousand dollars per user, floating across hosts (and maybe Unix platforms) but not floating across users; expensive.

Purify alternatives were recently discussed here [slashdot.org] .

Limited Asm Optimization (1)

lkaos (187507) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395248)

I briefly read over their specs on their website and it I find it quite humorous that all of the benchmark code is asm. So essentially, they have an assembler. Now, we have absolutely no idea what level of optimization they used and did not compare benchs with gcc with full optimization. What I would love to see is a comparision between gcc with -03 and they compiler then a comparision between a larger production quality program. I quite frankly can't see the market for this either.

Re:Limited Asm Optimization (1)

lkaos (187507) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395253)

let me apologize for not proofreading... that is definitely tough on the eyes :)

Re:Limited Asm Optimization (1)

Lurks (526137) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395267)

I briefly read over their specs on their website and it I find it quite humorous that all of the benchmark code is asm. So essentially, they have an assembler.

Err, I don't know how you got that impression. The benchmark code is in C. Just click on the tests on the left. If you click on the RIGHT you see the output assembly from the major compilers on Win32 platform.

And you're right, we haven't benchmarked against GCC because it's not a contender on Win32. Also your point on seeing benchmarks on large 'production quality program' is well taken and we're working on that. We've got some real-world games/engines compiling nicely but since we can't release the source for those it's of dubious use wouldn't you say?

Quake 1 is what a lot of people like to test us with, compiling it themselves.

Mat 'Lurks' Bettinson, Codeplay Ltd.

Re:Limited Asm Optimization (1)

csmiller (315238) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395367)

And you're right, we haven't benchmarked against GCC because it's not a contender on Win32.
This raises an interesting question, what are DJGPP [delorie.com] (GCC for DOS) and Cygwin [redhat.com] (GCC for MSWindows) like as compilers?
I've used DJGPP (a few years ago now) and it seemed to produce fast enough code for me, once you get used to a UNIX enviroment. It came with a Borland-like deleopment enviroment, which easies the transision.

Re:Limited Asm Optimization (2, Informative)

nusuth (520833) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395269)

I guess you misunderstood the way vectorc works. You can just compile the code usual way, or as a preferred alternative you can start interactive optimizer which allows you to see what asm code C code produces with various optimization options while editing C code. The interactive optimizer (at least my demo version) do not allow you to edit asm, it just helps you to see where suboptimal code is produced and why, so you can change either C code or compiler options to produce faster code. gcc is very slow on intel/amd. It is pointless to even compare (nevertheless, I did. gcc 2.95 is sloooow. gcc 3.x is even slower on my matrix multiplication function.) The real competition is between intel compiler and vectorc.

Re:Limited Asm Optimization (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2395272)

You need to look carefully before you jump to conclusions (though that doesn't stop most ppl on /.)
You looked at the asm output from the VectorC compiler. The source code is available as a link under the name of the benchmark test - the description could have had a better descriptive name.

Re:Limited Asm Optimization (1)

mimbleton (467957) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395306)

"I quite frankly can't see the market for this either."

There is no market for commercial compilers on Linux period.

Re:Limited Asm Optimization (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2395414)

"There is no market for commercial compilers on Linux period."

Says you.

But, since you're not writing the kind of code which would use this kind of compiler, you're not in this market to begin with, are you? So why the Hell are you commenting on something with Total Ignorance of its requirements?

MoRoN.

Keep Linux products OPEN Source (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2395250)

This story sounds very much like a company plug. However, if there is true desire to enter the Linux market with this product (as with most commercial products), the general Linux Mindset will have to be adhered to.
It seems obvious, but this has to be re-iterated : Linux is not a platform designed to get rich, it is one founded to get SMART and make things the way they should be made with community collaboration and upgradability in mind (open mind) so that the good/deserving products rise to the top and the crap stays at the bottom. IE: If you want this to work make it Open Source and the Linux community will use it, augment it and make it flourish. If you just want to make money... stick with Bill's boys (win32 platform).

Re:Keep Linux products OPEN Source (1)

MaxQuordlepleen (236397) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395298)

ugh, how wrong you are.

Is it so hard to understand that some applications will not come into existence through Open Source efforts? Specialty stuff like this compiler will never exist for Linux if you insist on 100% adherence to doctrine.

Re:Keep Linux products OPEN Source (3, Insightful)

Derkec (463377) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395329)


IF Linux ever gains the popularity we all hope it will, it will stop being the land of all open source. Games will not be open sourced and other really good products that people worked hard enough to earn money from won't be either. Realize that. It's already happening. People need to feed their families, so they sell their hard work.

This guy here is selling a product on Win32. I assume they are making money. The question is simply, if we provide Linux users the option to use our software on that platform, will anyone buy it? They are doing a good thing here. They are taking an application that presumably gives the Win32 platform some advantage and offering to make it available to Linux users. I hate to say this, but if MS Office was ported to Linux, not only would it sell, but the platfom would become more popular. Just because you as an individual flee from closed source, does not mean that a company should not market a closed source product to the Linux platform.

suggestion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2395251)

Open source a Linox version of the Special Edition and keep the professional edition propriitory

You'll need to do the thinking.. (5, Informative)

HeUnique (187) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395263)

Today, there are 2 compilers that are well known - GCC which is the default and most used on Linux, and Intel's ICC which is a commercial, but there is a free non-commercial version available from Intel. So far I have heard mixed reports from people about ICC effiency in terms of code generated, speed of binaries, size of binaries etc (slashdot users who use ICC - please post your conclusions).

Now - the next big compiler that will come out (commercially) is from Borland. Early reports from various testers suggest their C/C++ compiler is kicking both ICC and GCC in the ass, but again - I belive it when I see the numbers, although Borland got a reputation of isssuing quite fast compilers..

So - if you decide to release a compiler, you'll need to think about 3 points:

1. GCC compatible - you'll need it if you want to be used by open source users OR to allow developers to move their apps which used GCC to your compiler.

2. A free version (free as a beer) - in order to be really accepted and widely used by Linux users, you'll need to issue a free version for the developers to use. Intel learned this quite since the beginning that if they want their compiler to be accepted by the Linux users - they'll need to release a free version. Borland is rumored to release a free version also with their upcoming C/C++ compiler (command line version, not the GUI)

3. Competition - well, not much to say here, but you got companies like: Borland, Intel, and the GNU GCC, along with the Portland group's compiler, code warrior (Metrowerks) - plenty of competition. do you really want to get in?

Re:You'll need to do the thinking.. (1)

Lurks (526137) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395281)

1. GCC compatible

Yes, that's the idea. We accept broad compatibility is a requirement and we've done a lot of work on that sort of thing on several platforms.

A free version (free as a beer)

That's a possibility. However VectorC is something other than a general compiler, although that's ultimately the goal. My current thinking is that if you want a free general purpose compiler than there's nothing wrong with GCC. If you have a need to write high performance code, you're probably doing this because you have a serious application in mind. You're faced with hand coding assembly or... VectorC. If you don't enjoy hand-coding assembly then VectorC starts to look attractive (we hope).

Then again, plenty of programmers enjoy that, I don't quote understand them myself :)

3. Competition ... do you really want to get in?

Of course, otherwise Codeplay never would have started! To be honest, our focus is still games and in that area (specifically vectorization) compiler technology hasn't really moved forward.

Mat 'Lurks' Bettinson, Codeplay Ltd.

Re:You'll need to do the thinking.. (1)

mimbleton (467957) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395296)

Don't do it.
There is no money to be made in Linux market.
Just take a look at Loki problems.
What we have here is a single (yeah, with almost 100% market) Linux game developer unable to make money here and you are trying to sell compiler directed at game developers ?
It simply doesn't make any sense.

Re:You'll need to do the thinking.. (1)

Lurks (526137) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395308)

Linux game developer unable to make money here and you are trying to sell compiler directed at game developers ? It simply doesn't make any sense.

We're aware the Linux games market is non existant. Fortunately VectorC is still useful for multimedia processing (which is basically what games are!) and there's a bit of that going on under Linux, right?

Mat 'Lurks' Bettinson, Codeplay Ltd.

Which is why you shouldn't listen to them... (2)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395426)

So far, all the people that have made comments have been thinking in terms of things like Loki or old machines that wouldn't use your stuff well.

Multimedia comes to mind.

Serious number crunching comes to mind.

While gaming's "nonexistent" (I won't bore you with what I know about all of this- suffice it to say that the malaise for Linux gaming is less due to a lack of a market and more due to a lack of a channel to sell and in some cases hardware (i.e. 3D cards...) to run it on.) it's about to have an upturn. It would be NICE for a company that is using your compiler to make their game go be able to make the Linux version run as fast if they so chose to do it.

GCC's ok at either. There ARE better compilers for some things, though.

Depending on the price of the compiler and when it offers C++ support, I might be very interested in purchasing a license to it.

Re:You'll need to do the thinking.. (1)

bug1 (96678) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395309)

"That's a possibility. However VectorC is something other than a general compiler, although that's ultimately the goal. My current thinking is that if you want a free general purpose compiler than there's nothing wrong with GCC. If you have a need to write high performance code, you're probably doing this because you have a serious application in mind."

If there is no free (as in beer) version then how can one decide if the performance benefits are worth the $$$ ?

Free Demo (was Re:You'll need to do the thinking.) (1)

pastie (80784) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395349)


If there is no free (as in beer) version then how can one decide if the performance benefits are worth the $$$ ?


This page [codeplay.com] has a freely downloadable demo version, which only compiles 3 functions in a single source file, so that you can at least see if it does better than your current compiler.

However, you should get better performance the more of the code you compile with VectorC, as you can select different calling conventions using MMX, 3DNow or SSE, avoiding switching in and out of those modes between functions (with all the inherent copying in and out of the extended registers).

Re:You'll need to do the thinking.. (1)

mimbleton (467957) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395284)

"in order to be really accepted and widely used by Linux users, you'll need to issue a free version for the developers to use. "

Sorry but that is just stupid.
It is compiler what are we talking about here, a tool used exclusively by developers.
There is no "Linux users acceptance" here, if developers get to have it for free, that is it, you just killed your entire market here.

"do you really want to get in? "
I don't think they want to get in, for the simple reason that there is almost no money to be made in Linux market selling compilers.

Re:You'll need to do the thinking.. (2)

Jace of Fuse! (72042) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395398)

You've been doing some nice trolling.

I'll counter your psuedopoints.

There is no money to be made in Linux market.

First, just because there isn't a large Linux game market right now doesn't mean there will not be in the distant future. Since this compiler is only at version 2.0, now is the PERFECT time to get into Linux. That way, this compiler can grow with the Linux gaming market.

There is no "Linux users acceptance" here, if developers get to have it for free, that is it, you just killed your entire market here.

There are all kinds of free liscensing schemes which could apply to the free version. "Free for non-commercial use, etc. etc." Budding game developers might want to try the free version. Professional developers would almost certainly be willing to fork out the cost for the commercial version. After all, those are small expenses compared to the cost of developing a video game now days.

I don't think they want to get in, for the simple reason that there is almost no money to be made in Linux market selling compilers.

Sure they want to get in. They want to get in if the future of Linux gaming is bright. Sure, that's questionable. But then most business ventures are questionable. Some just make more clear business sense than other. If the Linux game market really sees a boom in the next five years then having their feet in the game-centric compiler door before the boom hits will have been an excellent decision. It's a risk, but I'd be willing to say it's a worthwhile risk. It's like gambling on fair odds with a high payout.

I think the real question here isn't so much if THEY want to invest the time in a Linux version, but rather, if the Linux community really wants to see Linux move in that direction.

It's partially my opinion that Linux users actually don't WANT Linux to become so mainstream that a large portion of the software for it is commercial, and only binary distributions exist. That sort of market is generally what happens to a mainstream OS, and it goes somewhat against the grain of Linux.

I personally think a game-centric compiler for Linux is a great idea. It's certainly no worse of an idea than SDL [libsdl.org] , and SDL is definately coming along nicely. The future of Linux gaming looks a whole lot better today than I would have thought it would a few years back. There's still along way to go, though.

yes, it does (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2395265)

Programs compiled with gcc segfault when you try to push more than 32 megabytes on the stack.

Sounds like a neat product.. (2)

defile (1059) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395270)

Check out their home page if you want the executive summary of what their compiler does. (Unless 'vectorizing' is a term you're familar with).

But like another poster said, what do they mean by porting to Linux? Their compiler generates code that runs on Linux, or their compiler runs on Linux generating code for something else? (Or both)

Merge it into GCC (1)

Gordy (141822) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395274)

If the optimizer is better then GCC then add/merge those components into GCC to improve it. This will save your company maintenance resources and time in the long run (ie. $$$) if the GCC community picks it up.

Re:Merge it into GCC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2395287)

does merging code with GCC give them money? i'm not trying to be an ass, but they need to make money. GCC is quite free. And if they merge code into GCC and sell it commercially, people will just download the free version.

please think a little bit before you post.

Re:Merge it into GCC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2395354)

no money directly. i agree, he should think before he post.

Re:Merge it into GCC (1)

mimbleton (467957) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395301)

Yeah, smartass ... merging with GCC is a great way to put all these people out of work.

Re:Merge it into GCC (1)

Lurks (526137) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395365)

That's so not going to happen :)

Appart from anything else, the approach of GCC and VectorC could not be more different.

Mat 'Lurks' Bettinson, Codeplay Ltd.

porting to linux (4, Interesting)

zerocool^ (112121) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395277)

Porting this to linux seems to be a good idea, but the inherent problem is your business model. Who is your target audience? Are you targeting corporations such as lokisoft [lokisoft.com] who will use your compiler to port/create games for linux?
(side note- the lokisoft page is down, i dunno if that is a fluke, if i have the wrong URL, or if they've packed up and left)

The problem is that if you target corp.'s like loki, you may not be able to sell enough units, or whatever, to justify the cost of porting. These linux gaming companies seem to fold faster than omlettes at waffle house.

If on the other hand, you just ported it and released it at random into the linux/OSS community, you would be doing the community a favor, and independant cells of programmers could attempt to port/write games for linux.

The problem with this solution is also the cost: If you release it open source for linux, you would be somewhat of a hero, or philanthropist, to the OSS community; however, you may not be able to justify the cost of porting it, if your idea is to make money by porting to linux.

I guess it depends on what time frame you think you can port it to linux in - if it would take you and your team an extra two days of programming, it may be worth it, as both a PR move and a gift to the OSS community. However, if it will take extra months of coding, just bear in mind that philanthropy doesn't pay bills.

Don't mean to be cynical, but you have to consider each decision as it relates to the almighty dollar.

It sounds as if you're doing fantastic work, though, keep it up.

Re:porting to linux (1)

Bjrn (4836) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395310)

> (side note- the lokisoft page is down, i dunno
if that is a fluke, if i have the wrong URL, or if they've packed up and left)

Perhaps you are thinking of the Loki games company?
In that case their URL www.lokigames.com [lokigames.com] is alive
and well.

Any plans for a PPC / AltiVec version? (1)

Lars T. (470328) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395285)

Any plans for a PPC / AltiVec version?

Re:Any plans for a PPC / AltiVec version? (1)

Lurks (526137) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395321)

Any plans for a PPC / AltiVec version?

We'd love to! Alti-Vec is seriously cool if you're in the business of getting excited about CPU vector units like we are.

We went to Apple and said "Guys, we'd really love to do a Mac version and you could really do with having a compiler that uses the cool bits in your CPUs. Wanna sling us a bit of cash?" The phones been strangely quiet. Oh well.

On the bright side, there's a games platform with a PPC processor. It doesn't have Alti-Vec (boo!) but it does have a basic vector unit. You can bet we're working on that pretty hard. So that'll have ramifications of moving to other platforms later on down the line when we have PPC code-generation going sweet.

Mat 'Lurks' Bettinson, Codeplay Ltd.

ask loki? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2395300)

Maybe you should ask Loki games for more information. They probably know better who is willing to pay for this.

Next on "ask slashdot" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2395312)

Next on "ask slashdot":

Dear slashdot,


How can I use slashdot to get free advertising for my lame closed-source company?


Sincerely,


Cheesy Huckster

Linux has a strange market (1)

drnomad (99183) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395314)

It has been said before - who is your audience. Linux has a strange market as a lot of people are used to the convenience of -free- software. That's perhaps the reason why Loki was having a hard time doing business.


I don't know what the business performance of Borland is with for example "Kylix", but for now, I haven't seen any free software yet, which was made with Kylix (does not mean it doesn't exist) but it makes me believe that their Kylix project was lesser success than intentionally expected.


Before Borland/Inprise started the Kylix project, they published a survey on their site, to investigate market demand. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I think that the enthousiasm in the survey results has not had the expected ROI for Borland. With the dot-bomb and the new economy collapse, investments in the Linux OS has gone down as well, except for those who chose Linux to be a strategic weapon against their competitors (IBM vs Microsoft).


Still, the point I want to make is, you need to determine your audience, but be cautious in your investigation methods and don't forget to do the general market watch.

Re:Linux has a strange market (1)

Lurks (526137) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395380)

Still, the point I want to make is, you need to determine your audience, but be cautious in your investigation methods and don't forget to do the general market watch.

Your point is taken. However we're a small efficient * company and as I've stated previously, porting to Linux would not represent a massive (additional) development outlay for us.

* On balance; perhaps it's not a good idea. When I yell at our developers for reading slashdot, they'll claim to be working :)

Mat 'Lurks' Bettinson, Codeplay Ltd.

Why VectorC anyway? (1)

Sagarian (519668) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395318)

Maybe it's just me, but if your specialty is high performance vector operations targeted specifically at graphic-intensive programs applications like games where vector operations are CPU-bound, then why would you not just code a superfast set of assembly routines for vector operations that are tuned for the various processors, and provide them as a C library that the world can use with their compiler of choice?

It seems like the alternative with VectorC is for me to implement my own vector libraries anyway and then hope your compiler is both clever enough to figure out how to optimize my code, and robust enough not to break on other constructs.

I'm not trying to be hostile, just curious. Perhaps there are tons more programs besides graphics / games that benefit from VectorC's optimization? Otherwise, it looks like you've implemented an entire C compiler to get a few features you could add to an existing one otherwise.

Re:Why VectorC anyway? (1)

Lurks (526137) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395339)

Maybe it's just me, but if your specialty is high performance vector operations targeted specifically at graphic-intensive programs applications like games where vector operations are CPU-bound, then why would you not just code a superfast set of assembly routines for vector operations that are tuned for the various processors, and provide them as a C library that the world can use with their compiler of choice?

I think you'll find that games and graphics application developers really don't want to be told exactly how to code the operations at the heart of their games/apps. There's also too many of these types of operations to generalise until suddenly you find you're implementing an engine in a library. And some people do that of course...

What you describe is pretty close to the concept of intrinsics. You generally find things like matrix manipulation as intrinsics functions. You place those in your C and the compiler automatically in-lines some pre-written optimized code. The trouble is, it's limited, not very flexible and of course it's CPU specific.

Mat 'Lurks' Bettinson, Codeplay Ltd.

VectorC would be Awesome on Linux (2, Interesting)

Vardamir (266484) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395326)

I've recently started working with a couple of 3D engines, and would really like to compile them with something like VectorC instead of GCC, and certainly I would like to see some of the Free Software Developers who make games use a compiler like VectorC if they can afford it, but especially developers like Loki Games, ID Software, etc. Of course, I would probably just use GCC until I had something very much worth presenting to the public (Open Source or otherwise), and for me to get the compiler before the final stages of development would be a question of how much VectorC costs, and how much the Version 2 upgrade would cost - but that is just me. As I said, there are some people out there who need it. What about 3D app makers like Alias|Wavefront (Maya), NaN (Blender), and several other companies I can't remember at the moment (the creators of Shake and Tremor, etc)? I don't know what compilers are available for PPC/PPC64 but obviously not many people care about that when it comes to games, but I'm sure someone will eventually make an equivalent of vectorc for ppc/64 if it hasn't already been done - but when it comes to the x86 I would really like to see it ported over (It would be nice to get the PS2 and x86 package togethor).

Nice one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2395327)

But you forgot to mention the price in the blurb which ended to the front page...

Re:Nice one (1)

Lurks (526137) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395350)

Simply put, we don't know yet. There is no reason why VectorC would have to be the same price as the Win32 versions (there's a Professional Edition and a much cheaper Standard Edition). I'm guessing it wouldn't be popular just to bundled a Linux version with the Win32 version...

Mat 'Lurks' Bettinson, Codeplay Ltd.

Yes (0, Troll)

Feign Ram (114284) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395328)

We could use some quality C, C++, FORTRAN compilers. Gcc might be the holy grail for the free software Taliban. But anyone who has done serious work knows about it's limitations. And don't give that bull crap about "the best support available on the net" - does'nt work in production environments. It's very important for commercial compilers to be available on Linux as it makes increasing inroads into Games, High end Graphics, Scientific computing etc. Already a lot of engineering software and other kinds of performace-critical software has gone the NT/2000 way, one of the reasons being the lack of good compiler or compilers that are too expensive on other UNIX platforms.

Actually, Brett Glass has been poiting out for a long time how Gcc has glutted the market for good compilers.

Anyone know how good the Intel compilers are ?

Linux yields an indirect ROI (2, Insightful)

quinticent (230886) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395341)

While supporting Linux may not show any direct impact in the game market as of yet what it would do is allow your company to market the product as a cross platform game compiler. Before your compiler would be of any use in that area you would need to have a PPC port, ideally both Linux and Mac. Also the most important part of a cross compiler is optimized libraries that run on every supported platform. This allows for a game company to develop once and target a number of different platforms with a simple compile. The ability for a game company to widen their audience with minimal work and investment will make your compiler an attractive option whether or not Linux has a huge game market.

Another area where Linux would be a boon is as compile farms. If a Linux version of your compiler came out that could target not just Linux but every other platform you support then companies could set up cheap compile farms to compile large programs in the background while a developers work stations\ remain free for development or testing. The beauty of it is that the compiler itself can be targeted to Linux and not specifically to an architecture like x86 and compiled to work on any Linux platform (which is almost any platform out there). With the PS2 running Linux a bunch of these boxes could be set up for this.

If game companies could target any platform they wish without having to invest it makes them happy. The game industry is fickle. One year this is the platform to target, the next it is completely different. Having Linux as a target may not cause a developer to start pumping out Linux games but what it does do is leave the option open if the industry should shift that way. It makes developers sleep easier at night knowing their code will not become obsolete by the time they wake up.

Full C++ compatibility? (1)

chafey (108827) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395344)

"One caveat worth mentioning now is that the current version of VectorC is plain C only. 2.0 with full C++ compatibility is due early next year."

Full C++ compatibility? I think that would be a first!

Compatiblity is a big issue (2)

elflord (9269) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395353)

... for mainstream acceptance. C++ compilers all have their own name-mangling schemes which makes different compilers fundamentally incompatible. So the compiler may be able to find a niche market among developers of proprietary applications, but it's very difficult to persuade people to switch from g++, since that's what all the preloaded C++ libraries that ship with Linux use.

Re:Compatiblity is a big issue (1)

pastie (80784) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395372)

C++ compilers all have their own name-mangling schemes which makes different compilers fundamentally incompatible....

but it's very difficult to persuade people to switch from g++

For the PS2 version to support C++ this will _have_ to happen, as the default PS2 compiler is gcc/g++. So I'm sure that the compiler will have to be compatible with at least the GNU C++ ABI (probably version 3.0+), and probably also the CodeWarrior C++ ABI as that's also a popular compiler for PS2 development.

Porting that compatibility to a Linux(x86) version shouldn't be a problem, as that's a higher-level problem than the actual code generation.

What will it cost?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2395368)

What will your compiler cost? Will the super computing crowd adopt it? Will there be Fortran support (I didn't see that)?

The Portland Group charges a Lot for their compilers, and because GNU Fortran ain't so hot, people have to use PGC's product. A lot of these customers are the super comuting crowd.

Whether people pay for your product depends on the cost-benefit ratio.

MMmm. (4, Insightful)

Fixer (35500) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395376)

I like the idea of a specialized compiler being available if I need it (I'm stepping into the 3D waters).

But I have a small warning for you: If your compiler really does produce awesomely better code in that particular area, then if that area becomes popular with the GCC crowd, you are going to see alot of work spent on optimization. In other words, your product may be a spur to make GCC competitive with VectorC.

And I would also point out that I think that if VectorC, available for Linux/someArch, does NOT stir the GCC developers to improve, then your specific market doesn't exist on Linux.

Really sucks: Either you eventually face competition with GCC, or your product bombs on Linux.

Re:MMmm. (1)

nusuth (520833) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395412)

Although an open-source alternative is likely if vectorc does well on linux, I don't think that alternative will be gcc. There is no shortage of talented gcc developers now and almost everyone is complaining about performance of gcc. Yet gcc is not improving performance-wise. My guestimate is its performance sucks because of its basic design and cannot be substantially improved without drastic changes. Source->Intermediate language translation in gcc is focused on being free of any ties to a specific platform so that porting and cross-compiling is easy. Not all optimizations can be done after intermediate language is produced. I might be wrong about *what* is wrong with gcc's basic design.

I have a question too (5, Funny)

RelliK (4466) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395379)

I am developing an extremely authentic and highly innovative gaming technology for the information superhighway called SuperDuperGameAccelerator. It's really cool. It will accelerate games and cook your dinner too. I was wondering if it's worth porting it to Linux. In fact I'm already porting it to Linux, I just wanted to announce it to the world by posting on slashdot. You know, after the .com crash we can't get any more funding, so we could use all the free advertizing we could find. And I figured slashdot editors are too stupid to recognize the thinly disguised commercial...

Re:I have a question too (1)

Lurks (526137) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395407)

Heh, I always forget exactly how cynical people can be! (We're not porting to Linux yet btw, other platforms are a firm priority)

Mat 'Lurks' Bettinson, Codeplay Ltd.

We Would Pay (1)

BotKeeper (32722) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395385)

We are developing signal processing applications under GNU/Linux. Most likely, we will have a PowerPC G4, but it could be a SSE Pentium. We need C++ though. And we are very willing to spend $$.

VectorC vs. code bloat (2, Insightful)

starling (26204) | more than 12 years ago | (#2395421)

>the current version of VectorC is plain C only

Sounds like an excellent way to reduce code bloat. I suppose it's too much to hope that they take the "better C than C" parts of C++ and leave it at that.

I'm actually half serious here. I've worked on large projects in both C and C++, and the ones which were most successful were the ones where people didn't get carried away, trying to use every new, buggy, inefficient, feature of C++ in an attempt to prove that they could.

I'm all in favour of a compiler which restricts its features to those it does well instead of providing half-baked implementations of C++'isms just to bump up the feature list.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...