> You just discovered that Nasal is 10x slower than C++ > code! This is exactly why I prefer core code to end up in C++ in the end.
I don't think that's a valid interpretation of my results. Consider the two cases where I achieved a significant performance gain by replacing hard-coded structures with my own Nasal code (range animation, distance_to() method) - you wouldn't conclude from that that Nasal is faster either. I think what I have discovered is that well-designed code runs much faster than merely working code and that there's room for improvement in some places and it's worth looking for that room. The algorithm being equal, I don't think there's a question that C++ is faster (I doubt the factor 10 though - that seems to be an extreme case). Everything else being equal, I also don't think there's a question that Nasal code is more accessible. And I would base any decision what to hard-code and what not on that balance. Well, just my 2 cents... * Thorsten ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances and start using them to simplify application deployment and accelerate your shift to cloud computing. http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
