---Tim Wrote:--- > > * Maxim Olivier-Adlhoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [031118 10:20]: > > > > > when I know that it takes 50 modules to do what rebol does with the > > amount of code in the equivalent of 3 of them (without needing to > > actually load them ... ;-) > > > This while running 5-10 times faster... and having a much more reusable > code base in any circumstance. > > I've really not seen such an all-around speedup of rebol over python > to that degree. What comparisons have you made? > > I would feel safe suggesting that line-for-line, (speaking from my > experience only) rebol is probably 50% more productive than python. > [...]
I was basing that on a mail posted on this list (sometime ago) from someone who had done in-depth benchmarking. it is possible that the gap between the two has lessened since then, especially since python now uses more and more C based compiled object modules, which, like any rebol native, execute much faster. you are right, in what I can see from more recent comparisons. they currently seem pretty equal in speed. one thing though is that when writing code in rebol, performance is very elastic. yesterday I was having fun profiling a hashing loop: for 100000 ops, time went from: 50.1 seconds to 4.02 seconds A 92% time reduction, changing the block type to hash! lowered time by 90% (down to 5 senconds). some details like the way items where added to the block (insert instead of append), and using repeat instead of 'FOR trimmed about 20% in remaining time, from 5 seconds to 4 seconds. in other languages, there is usually less elasticity because there is many times only one way to address such low level things as setting/finding a value in an array... in rebol there can be many compatible approaches. -MAx -- To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject.
