brx

Sorry if my comment sounded harsh or belittling or anything, it was not meant that way.

Yes, she really is impressive and I really appreciate it.

 

To be honest, though, she's about two years too old to absolutely blow my mind (she would if it wasn't so obviously rehearsed).

 

My boy is two years old now and this really impresses me:

two year old drummer:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7h0zNQ3ZUW0&list=FLRA1wEmHs-ojhsiIN2R-76g

 

and another four year old

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP7NvDN0wuo&list=FLRA1wEmHs-ojhsiIN2R-76g
 

/yes, I am a drummer...

To expand a little on SiCrane's response:

• Under Windows+MSVC, the runtime has built-in support for tracking leaks.
• If you are running Linux, valgrind's memcheck is very effective.
• On a Mac, Apple's Instruments is your friend.

QFT.

 

This is some very good advice and so far you did not comment on even trying it.

I don't know what kind of multithreading you did in C#, but from my experience it's not easier than in C++. So if you say, that multithreading in C# for all your needs is easy than either a) you're a freaking genius or b) your problems were perfectly fitted for multithreading.

Our brain is just designed in a way that it thinks sequential. Once multithreading comes into play, it's hard to even imagine what might happen and to think of all possible scenarios. Andrei Alexandrescu from the C++ consorptium pretty much naiiled it: "Multithreading is just one damn thing after, before, or simultaneous with another". And that's all we know.

When the code based is not designed for parallelism from the start it is a great step to adapt.

The funny thing is, that most of those people complaining about only one core being used would shut up, if you'd just create <number of cores>-1 threads in your program doing nothing but an infinite loop so they see 100% of CPU usage.

What I am trying to say is, that saying "...there's no simple way to make something multithreaded..." is very accurate. Usually, the first 2 or 3 attempts to parallelize a previously sequential algorithm/architecure will lead in full CPU usage but in slower execution.

[Disclaimer: I am not very exerienced with Python, I have only used it once in University for a class about breaking crypting algorithms.]

To be honest, for me, being a quite experienced programmer, it seems kind of strange when someone says that "he has finished to learn" a programming language. I have been using several languages during the past 20 years (mostly C++, but also a fair amount of Java, C# and others) but in none of them I would say that I "finished learning". So, sorry, from your info it is impossible to say what else you need to learn, since, imho, it is close to impossible to actually finish learning a language (hell, even Bjarne Stroustrup says, he doesn't know every dark corner of C++ and he invented the damn language).

Start your project and once you encounter an actual problem, ask a specific question. I am quite sure somebody will be able to help you then. game of thought already posted some good ones, but since you "finished learning" the language, all of those must be known to you.


[EDIT]
Wow, now that was a brainfart. Sorry, I kinda missed that GoT is the OP, thanks for pointing that out, slice4ever. So please, ignore my above comment, I am leaving it here, though, so everybody can see how stupid I am ;)