On 29-Mar-2003, Stefan Matthias Aust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Still you won't get efficient dynamic languages, no Lisp, no Smalltalk, no Ruby or Python. Fortunatley, computers are probably fast enough to sacrify one order of magnitute of performance for better languages with better development performance (using python for rapid prototyping instead of C for example).
What makes you think that it will only be one order of magnitude?
Wild guess. I remember an article by Aubrey Jaffer talking about his scheme interpreter being 10 times to 50 times slower than an equivalent C program. That's an order of magnitude. My tiny smalltalk interpreter was running at 25.000 messages sends per second when a real Smalltalk system was able to do 500.000 message sends per second (on an old P100). Again an order of magnitude comparing an interpreter written in Java to a native code compiling system.
For fun, you might also want to look at the "Great Language Shootout" Scrpting languages like Python or Ruby get quite good ratings compared to C or Ocaml. You shouldn't look at something like calculating the Ackermann function though.
bye -- Stefan Matthias Aust // www.3plus4software.de // Inter Deum Et Diabolum Semper Musica Est
_______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
