On 7-okt-08, at 21:40, Don Dailey wrote:
On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 08:25 +0900, Darren Cook wrote:
And now I look at the ATS implementation of binary-trees, it is using
threads, while the C++ version is single-threaded.
Lots of apples and oranges comparisons here :-).
And there is no single processor comparison number. I wonder why
they
don't do a Pentium 4 version just to eliminate that from
consideration?
That's because those people advocating a certain language always have
a vested interest in it looking faster than something else. So they
distort the truth as much as a politician running for president.
There are a lot of factors involved that make a programming language
suitable for particular tasks. I think it's very possible that I'd
not recognise the best programming language for Go if it's staring me
in the face, simply because I wouldn't be able to see the paradigm-
shift necessary to make full use of the new language.
In the past, the more expressive languages like Lisp and Prolog have
always turned out too slow. So what most languages are now settling
for is a language with C-like performance but with OO capabilities.
What could make a difference is good support for parallel and
distributed programming. But a lot of that can be handled by
libraries. C# and Java have some nice native constructs to make
parallel programming a little easier, but I don't think it's a game-
changer.
Who knows we'll see something revolutionary appear yet. Something
like Prolog with automatic scalability over multiple processors. Who
knows, when processors really start to come in the hundreds or
thousands in a single PC. Then we might need something that moves
away from the serial statement type languages with functions, if-then-
else and loops .
Mark
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
