OpenEuphoria

Re: Open Discussion (Euphoria)

• Posted by Vincent <darkvincentdude at yahoo.com> Nov 26, 2005
• 567 views

irv mullins wrote:
> 
> If you retain that design, you'll be limited, as well. If you abandon it, 
> you'll have created another language. And if you're looking at creating 
> another language, there are already some completely free and open-source 
> languages out there which you could use, add to, etc. Languages which are 
> just as fast as Euphoria, but without the limitations. 
> 
> Irv

There are languages which are as fast or faster, but they are JITed or
traditional compiled. Euphoria blows away almost any interpreted language and
some compiled languages in terms of speed. Euphoria blows many compiled languages
away with the Euphoria to C translator option.

If your using that Qu language, your pretty limited yourself: It only runs on
Linux. They might be working on a Windows version too, but they dont have it yet.
Euphoria's execution is signficantly faster when comparing the available
benchmarks on that site. If they used Eu 2.5, the results would be even better,
since 2.5 has slighty faster execution speed. It seems the JIT option barely
outperforms the interpreter (even less so with v2.5), but once again, the
translator would fry it easy, to tasty bacon.

BTW, I found a new interpreted language simular to Qu (I think) called Gentee.
They plan a Linux version. Euphoria is only 55 times faster.

euphoria 55.00
pliant 38.24
gforth 34.67
parrot 8.72
ocamlb 8.10
poplisp 7.78
erlang 3.63
lua 2.99
pike 2.51
python 1.81
icon 1.72
perl 1.59
elastic 1.54
guile 1.40
cygperl 1.35
gentee 1.00  <--
ruby 0.94
mawk 0.93
vbscript 0.81
php 0.39
jscript 0.34
tcl 0.31
gawk 0.16
rexx 0.16


Cheers,
Vincent