I created a test program to do fibonacci series recursively in Perl, Python, Scheme, Lisp, C, and OCaML. Needless to say, OCaML kicked ass ;) But between Perl and Python, Python performed better by about 20%. On the other hand, fibonacci series is a bit of a different application than whatever tasks you may be talking about.
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 02:03:59AM +0300, Shaul Karl wrote: > > On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 05:00:29PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > > > Wolfgang Sourdeau wrote: > > > > > It might happen if there was a good reason, but nobody has suggested > > > > > one yet. > > > > > I doubt there is one. > > > > > > > > I have one. It's that dependency on perl makes owners of 486 machines > > > > die > > > > of an heart-attack whenever an installation task has to occur... > > > > > > Bollocks. Profile running perl sometime. Then profile running dpkg. > > > > Let me second this. Perl is very, very fast. > > > > Perl is faster than most people's hand-crafted C code for certain > > tasks (mainly pattern matching type tasks, also its associative array > > implementation is pretty nippy). > > > > On my 68020 machine, using a short perl script was an order of > > magnitude faster than sed or awk, even for exactly the kind of pattern > > matching tasks that sed and awk are designed for. > > > > Perl ain't your problem, it really ain't. > > > > Jules > > > > > Can you compare Perl speed to Python? > Just curious, have no prior knowledge on this. > -- > > Shaul Karl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;; Matthew Danish email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;; ;; GPG public key available from: 'finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]' ;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
pgp3U3E1I89kR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
