1. Qu v Eu
The Qu programming language has, I believe, charmed some
former Euphoria enthusiasts. A Qu performance chart found
here: http://centrin.net.id/~marc/performance.html
reports Qu's performance favorably as compared to
Euphoria's, at least when using a JIT compiler.
I would like very much to hear Rob Craig's comparative
analysis of Qu v Euphoria.
Regards,
Ken Rhodes
100% MicroSoft Free!
2. Re: Qu v Eu
- Posted by Robert Craig <rds at RapidEuphoria.com>
Jul 17, 2005
-
Last edited Jul 18, 2005
Kenneth Rhodes wrote:
> The Qu programming language has, I believe, charmed some
> former Euphoria enthusiasts. A Qu performance chart found
> here: <a
> href="http://centrin.net.id/~marc/performance.html">http://centrin.net.id/~marc/performance.html</a>
> reports Qu's performance favorably as compared to
> Euphoria's, at least when using a JIT compiler.
>
> I would like very much to hear Rob Craig's comparative
> analysis of Qu v Euphoria.
"Currently Qu works on Linux only.
Porting plans is on the way but it may take a while."
You can read the numbers as easily as I can.
Their own benchmarks show interpreted Euphoria beating
interpreted Qu by a healthy margin in each case.
I'm sure they wrote the fastest Qu programs they possibly could.
I don't know who wrote the Euphoria programs, and they don't
show the Euphoria source.
They also have a special compiled version, that requires installation
of some large, relatively untested GNU package. It barely beats
(according to them) interpreted Euphoria, and would surely lose to E2C.
Their current 1.09 version is slower than their 1.08 version,
so they used 1.08 for benchmarking.
No where on their Web site (that I could see) do they
list any dates of any kind, so it's hard to tell
how much activity there is, or how many users there are.
There's another language, called "Q" which is more popular,
so I think they should change their name.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
