Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:44:46 -0400 From: Dennis <dennis@etinc.com> To: seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach), hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: gcc -O bug Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010426184129.034e8090@mail.etinc.com> In-Reply-To: <200104262151.f3QLpdN29451@guild.plethora.net> References: <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
At 05:51 PM 04/26/2001, Peter Seebach wrote: >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.) Done. Like I said, its not worthy of debate. 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?5.0.2.1.0.20010426184129.034e8090>