OpenEuphoria

Re: Muhahahaha!

• Posted by Robert Craig <rds at ATTCANADA.NET> Aug 10, 2000
• 574 views

Drake ICE writes:
> I will give you all the money on my bank account if Euphoria is not
> at least 200 times slower in total than VC++ 6.0.

Please make check payable to:
     Rapid Deployment Software
     130 Holm Crescent
     Thornhill, Ontario
     L3T 5J3
     CANADA

> I saw a kid coming in here with his Euphoria Vs. VC++
> benchmark showing Euphoria was 250 times slower
> than VC++ 5.0, wich was 100% correct and the absolute truth,
> and RDS tries to muffle his results away with some fake talk
> like "oh but the C compilers often strip out code and those 10
> benchmarks weren't actually running.." DUH? That kid believed it
> and apologised! Offcourse a C compiler strips out some code
>  wich is NEVER CALLED, but not critical code wich is called
> thousands of times like that!

The code was supposed to be executed thousands of times,
but since it didn't calculate anything useful, the C compiler
optimized it away *completely*. Tiny, artificial benchmarks
like this are not very useful. I could write a tiny benchmark
that would show interpreted Euphoria to be 250x faster
than compiled C. (strlen() in C vs length() in
Euphoria.)

> It's being compared to interpretters written in the 70's,
> and then it draws the conclusion that it's faster!

When was Perl written?
When was Python written?
When was Java written?

> Then the Euphoria documentation says something like
> "We never met an interpretter that was faster than Euphoria"

We haven't. Have you?

> All you guys are thinking "but what about Euphoria being
> 8x faster than JAVA?". Yeah right, READ WHAT IT SAYS!
> It don't say RDS wrote a benchmark program in Euphoria
> *and* JAVA and the results showed Euphoria was 8x faster,
> it says that THE TIME IT TAKES TO READ IN AND START
> EXECUTION ON A PROGRAM IS 8X FASTER IN
> EUPHORIA COMPARED TO JAVA!!!!
> Understand? It's just saying that Eu's parser is 8x faster
> than JAVA's, not that JAVA programs run slower
> than Euphoria programs.

Wrong. We translated sieve.ex to Java and ran it with
the latest Java interpreter that existed at that time.
We did *not* include the fact that Euphoria starts up in
a tiny fraction of a second, whereas Java takes longer.
We only timed the loops. Since then Java *compilers*
have become available. They are faster than the original
Java interpreter (but with the Translator,
Euphoria is now much faster on sieve, shell
and others too).

> 2. Euphoria users can't produce .dlls, .ocxs or shared libraries,
> nor object files, and restrict Euphoria to producing EXEs and
> EXEs alone.

static and shared libraries and object files
will be possible soon using the Euphoria to C Translator.

> 4. They support only 3 platforms, and that truly is *NOT*
> going to cut it.

We intend to support more platforms, but we've
already covered what 90% of PC programmers are using.

Regards,
   Rob Craig
   Rapid Deployment Software
   http://www.RapidEuphoria.com