OpenEuphoria

Re: Re[2]: Benchmark Python vs Euphoria.

• Posted by Vincent <darkvincentdude at yahoo.com> Jan 07, 2006
• 533 views

ChrisBurch2 wrote:

> Hi
> 
> I'll stick with Euphoria, because I love the language, its simplicity, ease
> 
> of use, and speed for my needs. If I want to write fast FPS shooters, I'm
> sure that another language would be more suited anyway - I don't btw.
> 
> But - I'll bet that there are a fair few poeple out there who say that Java
> is faster, and who cares if it cheats - its the end results that matter, not
> the tool that get the end results.
> 
> eg a beautiful spanner undoes a nut, but a really ugly rusty one does it 3
> times faster - which one would you choose.
> 
> Bottom line - if you need to cheat to make eu faster, then cheat.
> 
> Chris

I completely agree. But it isn't fair to compare an interpreted to a fast
compiler or JIT. I recall even Qu is slightly faster than Euphoria when their JIT
compiler option is used. Even the fastest interpreted languages (like Euphoria)
cannot stack against most optimizing JIT/compilers. The Java HotSpot virtual
machine seems to be an interpreter and JIT hybrid.

To make things fair you can use the Euphoria to C translator that could increase
overall performance upto five times. This is the way to go when releasing
closed-source applications or libraries.


Regards,
Vincent