"Unpleaseant Truths" in "Computer Science"

Re: "Unpleaseant Truths" in "Computer Science"

Postby FZR1KG » Sun Aug 24, 2014 5:36 am

Oh the irony.
NASA uses and researches State Machines as do avionics. There would have been no men landing on the Moon without it. It was implemented because it was easier to understand and predict.
Now we're told that to be reliable we need to go to functional programming and steer away from State Machines, so it's easier to understand and predict.

Let's see:
NASA goes to the Moon with the use of ASM using computers with less power than a modern calculator and far less memory.
Firefox and Chrome hog tons of memory and crash often using functional programming.

Yeah, I can see their point.
^
|Sarcasm.
FZR1KG
 

Re: "Unpleaseant Truths" in "Computer Science"

Postby squ1d » Mon Aug 25, 2014 5:38 am

I have found Chrome to be an extremely lightweight and efficient browser, and it is written mostly in C++ and assembler.

Nobody really uses functional programming outside of academia because state is a good thing. However, FP is gradually getting its hooks into various languages and environments. Closures were introduced to Java in v8.
squ1d
 
Posts: 677
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 5:12 pm

Re: "Unpleaseant Truths" in "Computer Science"

Postby FZR1KG » Mon Aug 25, 2014 7:59 am

I just checked chrome on my PC, over 500Meg of ram used.
That's 25% of my RAM just for a browser. I call that a memory hog.
250+ meg with two tabs open, gmail and FWIS.
I recall reading somewhere that chrome and FF use functional programming styles.
Makes sense to me because of the huge memory usage as functional programs use a lot of stack space in their never ending quest for recursion. lol
FZR1KG
 

Re: "Unpleaseant Truths" in "Computer Science"

Postby squ1d » Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:31 am

I doubt in the extreme that chrome or firefox were written in any significant way using functional programming techniques.

For chrome, you can take a look in the in-browser task manager to see where memory is allocated.
squ1d
 
Posts: 677
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 5:12 pm

Re: "Unpleaseant Truths" in "Computer Science"

Postby Sigma_Orionis » Mon Aug 25, 2014 11:34 am

My Firefox is a memory hog, but I am not too sure I can blame that on the browser. I use a ton of extensions. IF I get irritated enough with it I'll switch to Chrome, and of course will probably use a lot of extensions as well. So in my case is most probably a a layer 8 error.
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi
User avatar
Sigma_Orionis
Resident Oppressed Latino
 
Posts: 4491
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 2:19 am
Location: The "Glorious Socialist" Land of Chavez

Re: "Unpleaseant Truths" in "Computer Science"

Postby Cyborg Girl » Mon Aug 25, 2014 12:03 pm

Chrome is mostly C++. I think C++11 has extensions for functional programming, but I'm not sure if Chrome uses them...
User avatar
Cyborg Girl
Boy Genius
 
Posts: 2138
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 2:54 am

Re: "Unpleaseant Truths" in "Computer Science"

Postby FZR1KG » Mon Aug 25, 2014 3:27 pm

Never mind. I miss read something.
There was no reference to FF or chrome in relation to what programming style they used, just the stack depth.

*
Up to the * above, I looked at the in-browser task manager.
The FWIS reply to post thread took 66Meg.
That's a lot.
I'll close chrome and start from scratch again and see what happens.
FZR1KG
 

Re: "Unpleaseant Truths" in "Computer Science"

Postby FZR1KG » Mon Aug 25, 2014 3:30 pm

Closing the browser with only gmail and FWIS open, then opening it and replying to this thread takes 15Meg of memory, just for this page.
That's according to their in built task manager.
That to me still seems way more than is needed to do the task of opening a page to reply to a post.
FZR1KG
 

Previous

Return to Sci-Tech… and Stuff

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests

cron