Exactly, that's why I mentioned my specific experience with my pet language, because I was in the case that for every iteration, I was creating 2 gobjects, which resulted in 100,000 gobjects created in a few seconds.
And just dropping gobjects (full classes) to use plain structs (compact classes) saw an improvement of 300%. GLib (and therefore Vala) provide many options that seem redundant at first glance until you realize their advantages (full classes, compact classes, boxed types, references over copies, etc). On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 4:39 AM, JM <[email protected]> wrote: > > I second that. > In typical scenarios, where you are not creating hundreds of thousands > GLib.Objects all the time, you will have much faster applications with > vala. > >> On 01/18/11 01:54, "Andrés G. Aragoneses" wrote: >> > On 17/01/11 14:08, Jiří Zárevúcky wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:24 AM, Didip Kerabat<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> I don't know about any recent benchmarks, but I think Vala will >> >> generally be a bit slower than Mono, but more memory efficient. >> > >> > Slower, really? >> > >> > Would that be true as well for the dova profile? >> i think (not demonstrated) that vala is faster than mono on normal >> situations where you >> don't build over nine thousand objects per second. >> _______________________________________________ >> vala-list mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list > > > _______________________________________________ > vala-list mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list > _______________________________________________ vala-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list
