On Jan 25, 2007, at 2:42 PM, Frank Condello wrote:
On 25-Jan-07, at 1:07 PM, Stefan wrote:
Am 25.01.2007 um 03:50 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Jan 25, 2007, at 02:08 UTC, Giovanni wrote:
To all the RB pros,
Why is it that RB would be slower?
I know that RB is not optimized, but is the performance penalty
that
evident?
No. In fact, RB is faster at some things than code you'd most
likely
write in C/C++, as a great deal of effort has been put in under the
hood to make them fast, even making use of parallel processing
and so
on.
While this may be true, it's not that simple to figure out the
routines/methods,
which are actually fast.
Thus, a short LR chapter regarding speed issues might be helpful.
I think Giovanni was referring to the lack of an optimizing
compiler... Sure some framework methods are optimized (and many are
written C++) but you can only optimize your own RB code so much,
and it usually involves great sacrifices in readability - manual
inlining and loop unrolling aren't pretty! Fact is, all the manual
optimizations in the world are still unlikely to get your RB code
running as fast as equivalent C code compiled with optimizations
enabled.
Although your Rb code will be running slowly while you're still
looking for that elusive double free error in your C code.
Charles Yeomans
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
