From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Apr 26 14:51:52 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from guild.plethora.net (guild.plethora.net [205.166.146.8]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FD1E37B423 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:51:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from seebs@guild.plethora.net) Received: from guild.plethora.net (seebs@localhost.plethora.net [127.0.0.1]) by guild.plethora.net (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f3QLpdN29451 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 16:51:40 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <200104262151.f3QLpdN29451@guild.plethora.net> From: seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) Reply-To: seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: gcc -O bug In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:36:02 EDT." <5.0.2.1.0.20010426133342.032c48f0@mail.etinc.com> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 16:51:38 -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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