Matthew David Parker wrote:
Yes, I guess I want to know which one really works better and for what
types of programs. I noticed gambit did fibonacci faster than chicken,
yet it seems to be choppy on my little game.
I'm sure people can stick their finger in the air and tell you various
things. They may even have specific experience with various problem
domains that back up their assertions. But the bottom line is, what are
*YOUR* problems? If you're doing games, and Chicken works and Gambit
doesn't, there you have it. Benchmarking always has to be based in
reality. It doesn't matter how many theories or "supposed to be's" you
throw at it. The only performance you get is the performance you
actually measure.
I'm nominally a Windows game developer. I came to Chicken because it's
performance-oriented. I saw some proof of this in Shootout benchmark
scores. I was previously doing Bigloo, which on those tests was even
more performance-oriented. But I had problems getting a working Bigloo
environment set up. So I hopped to Chicken, thinking the grass would be
greener, and had equal but different problems getting a working
environment set up. :-) But I've solved some of those problems, like
getting it to build reliably with MinGW, and I've established good
working relationships along the way. If I didn't have so much job
pressure at present, I think I'd actually be productive.
I bounced around from language to language, implementation to
implementation, for a long time before settling on Chicken. I don't
recommend the "butterfly" thing. I have a smattering of knowledge about
a lot of language, and no real production quality skills in any of
them. If something is working, keep going. If it ain't broke, don't
fix it.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
_______________________________________________
Chicken-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
