1. more powerful than c++(...able to leap over tall buildings with a ..)
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C2F94F.2D3E37A0
charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi all,
Just curious, the claim that euphoria is "more powerfull than c++", how =
is this arrived at? As
a side note, I love euphoria and believe that Rob C. is close to a =
genius, I just want to know why thats
on the website? We already know euphoria is slower than c because it was =
programmed in c, but what is the comparison with c++ coming from, any =
benchmarks? These are the two languages I deal with, Im=20
kind of curious...
thx,
J.Dube
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C2F94F.2D3E37A0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Hi all,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> Just curious, the claim that =
euphoria is=20
"more powerfull than c++", how is this arrived at? As</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>a side note, I love euphoria and =
believe that Rob=20
C. is close to a genius, I just want to know why thats</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>on the website? We already know =
euphoria is slower=20
than c because it was programmed in c, but what is the comparison with =
c++=20
coming from, any benchmarks? These are the two languages I deal with, Im =
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>kind of curious...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>thx,</FONT></DIV>
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C2F94F.2D3E37A0--
2. Re: more powerful than c++(...able to leap over tall buildings with a ..)
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 19:36:37 -0500, <dubetyrant at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> Just curious, the claim that euphoria is "more powerfull than c++", how
> is this arrived at? As
> a side note, I love euphoria and believe that Rob C. is close to a
> genius, I just want to know why thats
> on the website? We already know euphoria is slower than c because it was
> programmed in c, but what is the comparison with c++ coming from, any
> benchmarks? These are the two languages I deal with, Im kind of
> curious...
> thx,
I suspect it comes from the idea that, given a programming project that
started from scratch (ie. no-code reuse from other projects), one could
achieve delivery of the product faster with Euphoria than with C++, and
with fewer bugs.
I don't know of any hard data to support this position, and I'm sure it is
anacedotal. Religious Wars have been started over less 
I'd love to see properly kept statistics over the life-time of a Euphoria
project which was run in a CMM Level 3+ environment.
--
cheers,
Derek Parnell
3. Re: more powerful than c++(...able to leap over tall buildings with a ..)
So c++ must be as fast as c because it is compiled? Does that mean any
compiled language would be faster than the fastest interpreted?(euphoria);}
>From: Derek Parnell <ddparnell at bigpond.com>
>Subject: Re: more powerful than c++(...able to leap over tall buildings
>with a ..)
>
>
>On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 19:36:37 -0500, <dubetyrant at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Hi all,
>>Just curious, the claim that euphoria is "more powerfull than c++", how is
>>this arrived at? As
>>a side note, I love euphoria and believe that Rob C. is close to a genius,
>>I just want to know why thats
>>on the website? We already know euphoria is slower than c because it was
>>programmed in c, but what is the comparison with c++ coming from, any
>>benchmarks? These are the two languages I deal with, Im kind of curious...
>>thx,
>
>I suspect it comes from the idea that, given a programming project that
>started from scratch (ie. no-code reuse from other projects), one could
>achieve delivery of the product faster with Euphoria than with C++, and
>with fewer bugs.
>
>I don't know of any hard data to support this position, and I'm sure it is
>anacedotal. Religious Wars have been started over less
>
>I'd love to see properly kept statistics over the life-time of a Euphoria
>project which was run in a CMM Level 3+ environment.
>
>--
>
>cheers,
>Derek Parnell
>
>
>
>TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
>
4. Re: more powerful than c++(...able to leap over tall buildings with a ..)
On Wed, 02 Apr 2003 21:08:51 -0500, <dubetyrant at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> So c++ must be as fast as c because it is compiled? Does that mean any
> compiled language would be faster than the fastest interpreted?(euphoria)
> ;}
>
What? I was talking about the amount of time it takes to DELIVER a product,
not the amount of time it takes for that product to EXECUTE.
It is claimed by some that it is faster to CODE in Euphoria than C++, for
the same result. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the speed of the
executing program - just how fast it took to write the program.
[snip]
I repeat what I said earlier.
>>
>> I suspect it comes from the idea that, given a programming project that
>> started from scratch (ie. no-code reuse from other projects), one could
>> achieve delivery of the product faster with Euphoria than with C++, and
>> with fewer bugs.
>>
--
cheers,
Derek Parnell
5. Re: more powerful than c++(...able to leap over tall buildings with a ..)
Ya, I understood the first time, and thanks. My second question was a
seperate entity, more about the nature of compilation.
Because translated eu programs run execute slightly slower than
straight c, I imagine some kind of layer that exists. I was pondering
the existence of a similar layer between c and c++ because of c++ added
complexity. That may or may not exist. I thought maybe RDS was referring to
c-compiled eu programs being faster than c++ albeit not as fast as straight
c, given THAT speed and the simplicity and speed of putting the programs
together might add up to a statement of eu being more powerful than c++. So
I guess my question was a new one. Sorry for the contrast, I can definately
see your point, however.
thanks
--Jason Dube
>From: Derek Parnell <ddparnell at bigpond.com>
>Reply-To: EUforum at topica.com
>To: EUforum <EUforum at topica.com>
>Subject: Re: more powerful than c++(...able to leap over tall buildings
>with a ..)
>Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 12:47:46 +1000
>
>
>On Wed, 02 Apr 2003 21:08:51 -0500, <dubetyrant at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>So c++ must be as fast as c because it is compiled? Does that mean any
>>compiled language would be faster than the fastest interpreted?(euphoria)
>>;}
>>
>
>What? I was talking about the amount of time it takes to DELIVER a product,
>not the amount of time it takes for that product to EXECUTE.
>
>It is claimed by some that it is faster to CODE in Euphoria than C++, for
>the same result. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the speed of the
>executing program - just how fast it took to write the program.
>
>[snip]
>
>I repeat what I said earlier.
>>>
>>>I suspect it comes from the idea that, given a programming project that
>>>started from scratch (ie. no-code reuse from other projects), one could
>>>achieve delivery of the product faster with Euphoria than with C++, and
>>>with fewer bugs.
>>>
>
>--
>
>cheers,
>Derek Parnell
>
>
>
>TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
>
6. Re: more powerful than c++(...able to leap over tall buildings with a ..)
- Posted by gertie at visionsix.com
Apr 03, 2003
On 2 Apr 2003, at 21:08, dubetyrant at hotmail.com wrote:
>
> So c++ must be as fast as c because it is compiled? Does that mean any
> compiled language would be faster than the fastest interpreted?(euphoria);}
Depending on how an interpreter is set up, a well designed interpreted
language could run almost as fast as a compiled language. Both do a once-
thru to optomise constants and inline code blocks. If the keywords in the
interpreted language are also replaced with the equivalent inline pre-compiled
code, or at least a jmp to such code, the interpreter will be faster than 1/2 as
fast as the compiled code. And some interpreted language implementations
will run faster than compiled: Eu interpreted will outrun my Turbo pascal
compiled code.
Kat
>
>
> >From: Derek Parnell <ddparnell at bigpond.com>
> >Reply-To: EUforum at topica.com
> >To: EUforum <EUforum at topica.com>
> >Subject: Re: more powerful than c++(...able to leap over tall buildings
> >with a ..)
> >Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 11:53:44 +1000
> >
> >
> >On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 19:36:37 -0500, <dubetyrant at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Hi all,
> >>Just curious, the claim that euphoria is "more powerfull than c++", how is
> >>this arrived at? As a side note, I love euphoria and believe that Rob C. is
> >>close to a genius, I just want to know why thats on the website? We already
> >>know euphoria is slower than c because it was programmed in c, but what is
> >>the
> >>comparison with c++ coming from, any benchmarks? These are the two languages
> >>I
> >>deal with, Im kind of curious... thx,
> >
> >I suspect it comes from the idea that, given a programming project that
> >started from scratch (ie. no-code reuse from other projects), one could
> >achieve delivery of the product faster with Euphoria than with C++, and
> >with fewer bugs.
> >
> >I don't know of any hard data to support this position, and I'm sure it is
> >anacedotal. Religious Wars have been started over less
> >
> >I'd love to see properly kept statistics over the life-time of a Euphoria
> >project which was run in a CMM Level 3+ environment.
> >
> >--
> >
> >cheers,
> >Derek Parnell
> >
> >
> >TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
> >
>
>
>
> TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
>
7. Re: more powerful than c++(...able to leap over tall buildings with a ..)
Kat said:
"If the keywords in the interpreted language are also replaced with the
equivalent inline pre-compiled code, or at least a jmp to such code, the
interpreter will be faster than 1/2 as fast as the compiled code."
-how do you mean? how can you do that? so without doing that the interpreter
isn't even half as fast? or am I not getting it?
thx
8. Re: more powerful than c++(...able to leap over tall buildings with a ..)
>Because translated eu programs run execute slightly slower than
>straight c, I imagine some kind of layer that exists.
Yes, there is a runtime library.
>I was pondering the existence of a similar layer between c and c++ >because
>of c++ added complexity. That may or may not exist.
Not really. There is a runtime library with functions like "new" and
"delete", but it's not a layer in the sense of the Euphoria runtime.
>I thought maybe RDS was referring to c-compiled eu programs being >faster
>than c++ albeit not as fast as straight c
I don't think there is much of a speed difference between C and C++, if any
(you might lose a few cycles on a method call vs. a plain function call).
9. Re: more powerful than c++(...able to leap over tall buildings with a ..)
- Posted by gertie at visionsix.com
Apr 03, 2003
On 2 Apr 2003, at 23:32, dubetyrant at hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
> Kat said:
> "If the keywords in the interpreted language are also replaced with the
> equivalent inline pre-compiled code, or at least a jmp to such code, the
> interpreter will be faster than 1/2 as fast as the compiled code."
>
> -how do you mean? how can you do that? so without doing that the interpreter
> isn't even half as fast? or am I not getting it? thx
It can be at least ( more than ) 1/2 as fast as the compiled program.
0 - as fast as we'd like
1 - well designed compiled
2 - possibly this fast
3 - possibly this fast
4 - possibly this fast
5 - possibly this fast
6 - possibly this fast
7 - not so well designed compiled or interpreted
8 - not so well designed compiled or interpreted
9 - not so well designed compiled or interpreted
10 - not so well designed compiled or interpreted
Kat
