Re: Stupid Newbie-sounding question.
>From: Matt Lewis <guest at RapidEuphoria.com>
>Subject: Re: Stupid Newbie-sounding question.
> > Firstly, I agree with you totally. My opinion is that Euphoria is more
> > than fast enough for any of the application for which I would choose to=
> > use it. Making it 50% slower would still leave it more than fast enough=
.
>
>I agree that Euphoria is fast enough for *most* things that I like to
>do with it, however, it wouldn't be if it slowed down (especially by
>50%). I write a lot of custom optimization code in Euphoria, and it's
>often right on the edge of being fast enough for some things. If it
>slowed down, I'd have to stop using Euphoria for these tasks (yes,
>even running on 3Ghz machines).
Yes, you may think it doesn't matter whether a sub-routine takes 0.01=20
seconds or 0.0001...
But if your program needs to call this subroutine 1000 times at startup,=
=20
then those small differences are magnified 1000-fold.
Algorithmic efficiency is the most important thing now, not so much things=
=20
like how many bytes a primitive type is stored in (some exceptions), and=
=20
things like the processing time spent in the main portion of the code.
>
>It's mainly the flexibility/speed combination that I like. I can
>develop these things very quickly, and more of my time is focused on the
>algorithms, rather than data structure or garbage collection, which
>can be really important when you're looking at, say, hundreds of thousands=
>or millions of possible solutions.
>
>I'm sure I'm in the minority on this (although going by User Contributions=
,
>not totally alone), but thought I'd speak up for those of us for whom
>speed still matters.
>
>Matt Lewis
>
>
>
>
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
