"Based on the powerful editing component Scintilla, Notepad++ is written
in C++ and uses pure Win32 API and STL which ensures a higher execution
speed and smaller program size. By optimizing as many routines as
possible without losing user friendliness, Notepad++ is trying to reduce
the world carbon dioxide emissions. When using less CPU power, the PC
can throttle down and reduce power consumption, resulting in a greener
environment."

Could this be true in any significant or semi-significant way?

On 7/27/2023 5:53 AM, micky wrote:
> "Based on the powerful editing component Scintilla, Notepad++ is written
> in C++ and uses pure Win32 API and STL which ensures a higher execution
> speed and smaller program size. By optimizing as many routines as
> possible without losing user friendliness, Notepad++ is trying to reduce
> the world carbon dioxide emissions. When using less CPU power, the PC
> can throttle down and reduce power consumption, resulting in a greener
> environment."
>
> Could this be true in any significant or semi-significant way?
>

Uh, no.

The best software, is written in Assembler :-/

Everyone knows that.

I keep extra cylinders of CO2 next to my desk,
to compensate for any CO2 declarations from my software.

Did you know, that when the cursor disappears in my copy
of Microsoft W11 Notepad.exe , that is saving CO2 ??? I usually
honk my CO2 horn, when the cursor disappears. It's still doing
that in Windows 11 and has not been fixed. It's idiotic, as all
they need to do is just leave the I-beam turned on and not flash
it, and their fetish with Co2 is solved. I could believe a theory
that operating a timer to make the cursor flash, could somehow
use electricity. But leaving the cursor fixed on the screen (not
flashing), costs nothing. Turning off the entire screen, now that
saves on gravy and fries even, as well as Co2.

Paul

On 07/27/2023 5:53 AM, micky wrote:
> "Based on the powerful editing component Scintilla, Notepad++ is written
> in C++ and uses pure Win32 API and STL which ensures a higher execution
> speed and smaller program size. By optimizing as many routines as
> possible without losing user friendliness, Notepad++ is trying to reduce
> the world carbon dioxide emissions. When using less CPU power, the PC
> can throttle down and reduce power consumption, resulting in a greener
> environment."
>
> Could this be true in any significant or semi-significant way?
Anything that can be tied to climate change is always true and SHOULD
NOT BE QUESTIONED.

On 7/27/2023 7:42 AM, knuttle wrote:
> On 07/27/2023 5:53 AM, micky wrote:
>> "Based on the powerful editing component Scintilla, Notepad++ is written
>> in C++ and uses pure Win32 API and STL which ensures a higher execution
>> speed and smaller program size. By optimizing as many routines as
>> possible without losing user friendliness, Notepad++ is trying to reduce
>> the world carbon dioxide emissions. When using less CPU power, the PC
>> can throttle down and reduce power consumption, resulting in a greener
>> environment."
>>
>> Could this be true in any significant or semi-significant way?
> Anything that can be tied to climate change is always true and SHOULD NOT BE QUESTIONED.

It's obvious, that someone in the organizational chain, has
been tasked with finding "CO2 trivia". But they pick the most
absolutely awful things as "examples of their craft". Like,
someone saves a milliwatt, and they choose that as their example,
when the CPU needs a tuneup to save 30 watts of waste.

That's what bothers me about it, is no sense that anyone
looks at the overall picture. And I know there are people
at Microsoft who DO look at overall power, as part of their
ACPI work on the machines. But then the Public Relations
machine always trots out these "1 milliwatt, what-a-good-boy-am-I" examples.
Surely some manager could do a better job on the optics of the thing.
I want to see the "I saved 30 watts" cases.

Paul

On 7/27/23 05:53, this is what micky wrote:
> "Based on the powerful editing component Scintilla, Notepad++ is written
> in C++ and uses pure Win32 API and STL which ensures a higher execution
> speed and smaller program size. By optimizing as many routines as
> possible without losing user friendliness, Notepad++ is trying to reduce
> the world carbon dioxide emissions. When using less CPU power, the PC
> can throttle down and reduce power consumption, resulting in a greener
> environment."
>
> Could this be true in any significant or semi-significant way?
In the scope of millions of users using apps that have been greened and each saves a bit of energy, yes. The world
could save a few hundred watts maybe (I'm taking the optimistic view).

But consolidate you shopping trips to save some gas and driving time and you'll do more for the CO2 than those little
computer bits.
--
Linux Mint 21.1 Cinnamon 5.6.8
Al

On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 05:53:52 -0400, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
wrote:

>"Based on the powerful editing component Scintilla, Notepad++ is written
>in C++ and uses pure Win32 API and STL which ensures a higher execution
>speed and smaller program size. By optimizing as many routines as
>possible without losing user friendliness, Notepad++ is trying to reduce
>the world carbon dioxide emissions. When using less CPU power, the PC
>can throttle down and reduce power consumption, resulting in a greener
>environment."
>
>Could this be true in any significant or semi-significant way?

I'm not prepared to give an unqualified no, but as far as I'm
concerned, it's *extremely* unlikely

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Thu, 27 Jul 2023 10:44:53 -0400, Big Al
<Bears@invalid.com> wrote:

>On 7/27/23 05:53, this is what micky wrote:
>> "Based on the powerful editing component Scintilla, Notepad++ is written
>> in C++ and uses pure Win32 API and STL which ensures a higher execution
>> speed and smaller program size. By optimizing as many routines as
>> possible without losing user friendliness, Notepad++ is trying to reduce
>> the world carbon dioxide emissions. When using less CPU power, the PC
>> can throttle down and reduce power consumption, resulting in a greener
>> environment."
>>
>> Could this be true in any significant or semi-significant way?
>In the scope of millions of users using apps that have been greened and each saves a bit of energy, yes. The world
>could save a few hundred watts maybe (I'm taking the optimistic view).

That's what I figured.
>
>But consolidate you shopping trips to save some gas and driving time and you'll do more for the CO2 than those little
>computer bits.

Well I do do that. And the electric company usually tells me I'm using
substantially less than the average of users who don't use much, let
alone the average of all users.

And that's before AC season. I don't have AC, though today I wish I
did.

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Thu, 27 Jul 2023 12:42:36 -0700, Ken Blake
<Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 05:53:52 -0400, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
>wrote:
>
>>"Based on the powerful editing component Scintilla, Notepad++ is written
>>in C++ and uses pure Win32 API and STL which ensures a higher execution
>>speed and smaller program size. By optimizing as many routines as
>>possible without losing user friendliness, Notepad++ is trying to reduce
>>the world carbon dioxide emissions. When using less CPU power, the PC
>>can throttle down and reduce power consumption, resulting in a greener
>>environment."
>>
>>Could this be true in any significant or semi-significant way?
>
>
>I'm not prepared to give an unqualified no, but as far as I'm
>concerned, it's *extremely* unlikely

Thanks and thanks all.

micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote in
news:pjf4citf25l84rvecjaj8pjkcug2a1jtqa@4ax.com:

> "Based on the powerful editing component Scintilla,
> Notepad++ is written in C++ and uses pure Win32 API and STL
> which ensures a higher execution speed and smaller program
> size. By optimizing as many routines as possible without
> losing user friendliness, Notepad++ is trying to reduce the
> world carbon dioxide emissions. When using less CPU power,
> the PC can throttle down and reduce power consumption,
> resulting in a greener environment."
>
> Could this be true in any significant or semi-significant
> way?

No.

But Notepad++ is a great, free tool.

On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 07:42:25 -0400, knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>> Could this be true in any significant or semi-significant way?
>Anything that can be tied to climate change is always true and SHOULD
>NOT BE QUESTIONED.

Thank you for sharing, Greta...

On 11/1/2023 12:52 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 07:42:25 -0400, knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Could this be true in any significant or semi-significant way?
>> Anything that can be tied to climate change is always true and SHOULD
>> NOT BE QUESTIONED.
>
> Thank you for sharing, Greta...
>

C++ isn't the most efficient language.

It tends to hump around routine names.
Some people seem to leave those in their
release code, because it may aid in bug reports.

In C at least, you seemed to have an option
to strip those routine names.

ASM is of course, the most efficient :-) We
used to have a lot of jokes about that at work.
That's because at first, we were constantly
challenged about our choice of HLL for the
development environment. Basically, the only
overhead, was line numbers. In a HLL, when you
move from one line of HLL code to the next,
a register gets incremented, and that register
content is the line number.

If the machine were to crash at that point, the
trap could print the line number on the screen.
If the executable was stripped, it couldn't print
the routine name, but it could print a line number
for you.

We had one developer, who arrived from the States,
and he was waving a thick program listing around. He
was walking around cube-ville and waving the stupid
thing around. Most employees ignored him, but eventually
he announced that he had "written something in assembler,
to show you fools how a HLL (High Level Language) is
so unnecessary". Once he said that, a few of the
devs started to snicker, because it is at that point,
they knew what kind of froot cake they were dealing with.
There were no hallway discussions with the bum :-) We
didn't go around hallways waving wads of paper to
impress people, where I worked.

And that's back when processors ran at 5MHz or 10MHz
sort of thing. Today, at 5GHz, nobody gives a rats
ass about a line number incrementer. You have more than
one integer unit per core, and the execution is hidden (runs in
parallel) and more than one instruction is retired in
the same 5Ghz clock tick. A modern core can retire four
instructions at once... but it hardly ever gets to do that.

*******

This is what happens on a 16C 32T, as you increase the number
of railed cores. It also gives you some idea what makes the
machine "skittish" between a single core half-used and a
single core fully-used.

idle 48W <--- Hyperthreading -->
1 core 113W 9 core 179W 17 core 223W 25 core
2 core 124W 10 core 204W 18 core 223W 26 core
3 core 125W 11 core 202W 19 core 27 core
4 core 147W 12 core 218W 20 core 28 core
5 core 147W 13 core 217W 21 core 29 core
6 core 161W 14 core 221W 22 core 30 core
7 core 161W 15 core 221W 23 core 31 core
8 core 179W 16 core 223W 24 core 220W 32 core 216W

The computers have closed-loop feedback on the cooling system
and they adjust both VCore value and frequency, to stay within
a "power limit" on VCore. The table does not include "work done".
When a lot of cores are running, it might drop to 4GHz, instead
of just barely managing 5GHz on a single railed core.

It also has policies on what to do when there are two chiplets,
and it does not treat the chiplets equally. On the AMD AM5 7000 series,
the ones with the asymmetric extra L3 cache chip, the same practice
of loading the chiplets differently, can be seen. The processor
above has symmetric L3, and no particular reason to be treating
the chiplets differently. By having one policy to cover everything,
it might simplify the code a bit.

Summary: High end stuff is skittish and wastes power. With enough
effort, an end user can adjust this. I don't know if you can
ever make the controls "completely rational".

The lower core count machines, aren't quite as skittish.
They represent a better value.

Power numbers above, are wall power, Measured by a P3 Kill-A-Watt.

The software that runs my machine, has an "ECO mode" , but
I have not tested it. There have been a few issues with this
kind of software, so I'm not interested in "burning anything"
in the name of science. The SOC power goes up and down, even though
there is no reason for it to do that, and that's a shortcoming
in the way they design these things (shared power converter, shared
with "something that moves"). I've even stuck my finger on the
SOC, and the power number is real.

So yes, the power the machine uses is relevant. If I ran the machine
flat out all year, it could cost me $700 for the privilege.

If you adjusted your machine (ECO mode), the Notepad++ statements
wouldn't matter quite as much.

Paul

On 2023-07-27 11:53, micky wrote:
> "Based on the powerful editing component Scintilla, Notepad++ is written
> in C++ and uses pure Win32 API and STL which ensures a higher execution
> speed and smaller program size. By optimizing as many routines as
> possible without losing user friendliness, Notepad++ is trying to reduce
> the world carbon dioxide emissions. When using less CPU power, the PC
> can throttle down and reduce power consumption, resulting in a greener
> environment."
>
> Could this be true in any significant or semi-significant way?

Optimizing software so that it is smaller and faster or consumes less
electricity is a good thing. Specially on a laptop. Have they achieved
it? Who knows. But they tried. Good.

Saying that it is greener is just some publicity logical on the times we
live :-)

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 09:29:24 -0400, Paul wrote:
> C++ isn't the most efficient language.
>
> It tends to hump around routine names.
> Some people seem to leave those in their
> release code, because it may aid in bug reports.
> ...
> ASM is of course, the most efficient :-)

More (not "most") efficient in execution time, for sure. But overall
efficiency considering the time to develop and debug the software,
and the time to add new features ... I'm skeptical.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

On 11/1/2023 1:59 PM, Stan Brown wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 09:29:24 -0400, Paul wrote:
>> C++ isn't the most efficient language.
>>
>> It tends to hump around routine names.
>> Some people seem to leave those in their
>> release code, because it may aid in bug reports.
>> ...
>> ASM is of course, the most efficient :-)
>
> More (not "most") efficient in execution time, for sure. But overall
> efficiency considering the time to develop and debug the software,
> and the time to add new features ... I'm skeptical.

I've never reviewed the code for a large assembler
project, to see whether it is intelligible or not.

The project I worked on, my code was only 3KB (in a 4KB ROM).
And it was "special code", straight off the short bus.
The guy that was attempting to mentor me, was
telling me about register discipline and programming
using a set of rules for register usage. And my code
was as flat as a pancake. I got my interrupt overhead
down to one cycle (FIRQ), and *no* registers spilled
when I changed context. So much for taking good advice :-)

From that, I think you can see how ASM gets a black eye
quite frequency, through no fault of its own. Hotdogs.
I don't think anyone opened that code after I finished.
The code was commented. And I think a lot of our ASM projects
went that way -- no code review.

Now, if you gave me another ASM project, would I write
flat code again ? Hell, yeah :-) Just for the shocked
look on someones face.

Paul