Andy Wardley wrote: > I'm a little surprised by that. Although I must admit that I've never > written IIS extensions in C++, I'm surprised that it offers significantly > better performance than a mod_perl solution.
Paul Makepeace wrote: > Programmer cluefulness being equal, when did interpreted, profiled > languages start even slightly approaching the speed of compiled, > profiled languages like C(++)? All things being equal, yes, I agree. I was thinking that for any piece of hardware, Linux/Apache is likely to run faster than Windows/IIS due to the greater memory requirements and general pantsity of the Windows codebase. Thus the greater speed of Good Kwalitee[tm] C++ code on a slow Windoze box over similar Good Kwalitee[tm] Perl code on a faster Unix box would be offset by a roughly equal hand-waving amount. As others have already mentioned, defining Good Kwalitee[tm] is another issue entirely. For many things (like strings), Perl already wins. And if your application is spending more time tied up to a database than doing any "real" processing, then the speed of the language will matter less and less. I was surprised for Penny to mention that the servers were "swamped" with Perl but ran fine in C++. Hence I suspected that the large performance mismatch was due to a comparison between a regular Perl CGI script and a compiled library. Which, of course, will give you a big performance difference, regardless of the language used. A
