On 30-Mar-2003, Stefan Matthias Aust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Fergus Henderson wrote: > >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 see. > 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. No, that's 1 to 1.7 orders of magnitude. But that's the slow-down for native code. My point really is that the relative slow-down of dynamic languages compared to statically typed languages might be worse for .NET CLR code than than it is for native code. -- Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | "I have always known that the pursuit The University of Melbourne | of excellence is a lethal habit" WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | -- the last words of T. S. Garp. _______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
