Re: www.Slow-AssEuphoria.com
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001 20:45:25 -0800, Jack Cat <catjackus at YAHOO.COM> wrote:
>Damn!
>After some benchmarks, written by yours truly zupahh
>l33t hax0r coder, I found out Eu is slow
>as...well...hell!
>It takes it a 100 times longer to execute a simple
>for-loop with an evaluation inside when compared to
>the same code written in LCCWin.
100 times slower? Not in my experience. I have used
Euphoria since version 1.0.
When I found myself developing 2000 lines of library
functions in Borland Pascal, which seemed like they'd
take me 50 lines of Euphoria, I did a test, using code
that actually did something, not just iterate assignments.
Ranging from statistical computations to dictionary-sorting and
reversal, requiring a lot of memory allocation and
de-allocation.
To my great surprise, Euphoria was at worst 8 times
slower then Borland Pascal; at best it was just as
fast.
Perhaps this is because I only work in DOS mode.
Whichever, that is when I decided to take the jump.
I have almost forgotten Pascal now, and I shrink
in horror at the mess of code I would have had to
write in Pascal, or C, or C++, to implement the
database I am currently working on. And the illegibility
and unmaintainability of it. Even if Euphoria was
_always_ 1/8 the speed of BP, it wouldn't be worth my while
going back.
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
