Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 6 Jan 1997 16:26:46 -0700 (MST)
From:      Ade Barkah <mbarkah@hemi.com>
To:        mrcpu@cdsnet.net (Jaye Mathisen)
Cc:        msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, hackers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: pib comments.
Message-ID:  <199701062326.QAA19442@hemi.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.95.970106121603.10100D-100000@mail.cdsnet.net> from Jaye Mathisen at "Jan 6, 97 01:03:17 pm"

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jaye Mathisen wrote:

> My frustration with TCL/TK was related to performance in general, 
> not your app.  I've tried TKdesk, and it crawls, and zircon runs 
> like  a dog as well.  The common thread being my machine, and tcl/tk 
> apps.

Well, TCL is generally pretty slow. It was supposed to be just
a control/glue language, but somehow people are now writing huge 
code entirely in tcl+tk, instead of doing most of the work in 
something like C. During the "Great TCL Debate" =-) (circa 1994)
Tom Christiansen offered the following comparison:

[1000 iterations of factorial(20)]

   C           0.230u 0.040s 0:00.34 79.4% 0+206k      x=  1.0
   scheme      2.170u 0.130s 0:02.81 81.8% 0+659k      x=  9.4
   perl5       2.800u 0.110s 0:02.95 98.6% 0+616k      x= 12.2
   python      4.710u 0.120s 0:05.18 93.2% 0+504k      x= 20.5
   perl4       9.820u 0.180s 0:10.61 94.2% 0+825k      x= 42.7
   tcl        26.950u 0.080s 0:28.43 95.0% 0+459k      x=117.17
   sh          don't ask :-)

That x=117.17 is an eye opener. Of course one might think Tom used
an example that favors Perl. =-) Here's selected entries from 
Jean-Jacques Girardot's benchmark posted to USENET back then:

[Fibonacci function, useful for measuring interpretive languages]

               CPU Time   Elapsed Time       C Ratio
   C               6.2u           0:08           1.0
   GLisp          76.6u           1:19          12.4
   Smalltalk     306.5u           5:19          49.4
   SIOD          371.0u          14:41          59.8
   XSCHEME       492.2u           8:20          79.4
   Python       1627.4u          27:55         262.5
   Tcl          3478.0u        1:00:27         561.0

Anyway, pretty interesting numbers; they're not conclusive, of
course, but imho one gets a feel for TCL's relative speed.

Regards,

-Ade
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Inet: mbarkah@hemi.com - HEMISPHERE ONLINE - <http://www.hemi.com/>;
-------------------------------------------------------------------



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199701062326.QAA19442>