Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 16:51:38 -0500 From: seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: gcc -O bug Message-ID: <200104262151.f3QLpdN29451@guild.plethora.net> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:36:02 EDT." <5.0.2.1.0.20010426133342.032c48f0@mail.etinc.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <5.0.2.1.0.20010426133342.032c48f0@mail.etinc.com>, Dennis writes: >Don't try to argue this ridiculous point on this list. You are badly >overmatched. You are so wrong that its not worthy of debate. Which is presumably why you offered no arguments. Actually, this is a fairly well-demonstrated result. Anything that depends mostly on the operation of, say, regexp code, and doesn't spend most of its time doing flow control will be fairly comparable in C and perl. Slower? Quite possibly. *much* slower? Not normally. I think the standing estimate is that competently-written perl will take no more than three times as long as carefully-written C for most perl-ish tasks. Matrix multiplies are an obvious exception. In practice, perl is likely to beat C substantially on most exrpession-matching code, because most C programmers write very inefficient matching code, and perl is good at it. (Go ahead, dismiss me as being unfairly biased against C.) -s To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200104262151.f3QLpdN29451>