4/6 C vs. Java vs. Perl comparisons:
Conclusion: C is still the fastest. Java is not as slow as people
think it is. Perl is nowhere close to Java performance.
\_ Apples, Oranges, Bananas, and Trolls who like to delete
\_ Multithreaded java with native threads with a
decent rt gives you functionality that you can
only dream about in perl and groan about in C.
Debugging a multithreaded java server is much
easier than an equivalent c/c++ server. If
I'm running in an enviroment where CPU cycles
are important, c/asm is the only choice, c++
perl and java don't even enter the picture.
In every other environment the easy of development
and maintenance overrides speed concerns.
If you are concerned about performance
get better algorithms.
postings, look only at implementation languages and not the
entire problem to be solved. -- tmonroe
\_ What about php4?
\_ who mentioned web application development?
\_ You're right. Compiled perl is much faster than java.
\_ Multithreaded java with native threads with a decent rt gives you
functionality that you can only dream about in perl and groan
about in C. Debugging a multithreaded java server is much easier
than an equivalent c/c++ server. If I'm running in an enviroment
where CPU cycles are important, c/asm is the only choice, c++ perl
and java don't even enter the picture. In every other environment
the easy of development and maintenance overrides speed concerns.
If you are concerned about performance get better algorithms.
\_ How exactly is c faster than c++?
\_ Formatting widened.
\_ c++ has more language overhead if you classes/exceptions/op.
overloading. Also the binaries for a c++ app are larger than
those of a c app. In a severly memory/cpu constrained env.
c is better than c++ in terms of size (smaller ex. image) and
speed (less instr. to execute for straight c vs. c++ using
objs.)
\_ this is completely false. the only execution overhead
you'll see in c++ is from virtual dispatch, which ONLY
happens with virtual functions. there is NO overhead
in overloaded functions (unless virtual), none in using
class's instead of structs. there is overhead in using
exceptions, yes. but the rest of your comment is full
of shit. and the only reason why your executables might
be bigger is because symbol names are longer in c++,
so unstripped binaries will be larger. if you don't
know what you're talking about, say so in your post,
please, so people won't go around spreading your
shit. oh, if you want to talk about code bloat, you
ought to be mentioning templates, not the crap you
\_ on the other hand, I think Larry Wall or some high mucky-muck
has been quoted as saying "dont byte-compile perl, its broke"
\_ Perl is normally byte-compiled every time you run it.
\_ gimme a breakhere.i'm trying to differentiate between
"compiling perl" as in "installing", vs
"precompiling your perl" forspeedgain, as hinted at by
the above poser
\_ He didn't mean "installing" and you don't deserve a
break, loser. You're probably the same idiot who made
the "c is faster than c++" comment.
\_ I (the "idiot" in question) did not make this comment.
\_ Apples, Oranges, Bananas, and Trolls. -- tmonroe
\_ I could an implementation on my TI-85 pseudo-BASIC that will kick
the crap out of any of those. Take an algorithms course. That's
the conclusion.
\_ Yeah, according to algorithms course radix sort should run
faster than quick sort on large data sets. That is, until
you take CS 252 and actually run the algorithms do you find
out otherwise.
\_ They're defined recursively, but you don't want to compute them
that way...
\_ PEOPLE! JESUS FUCKING CHRIST, LEARN PROPER ENGLISH!
\_ what's wrong?
mention. but then, most people don't know how to use
templates so they don't use them. -ali.
\_ I heard that you almost never need to write your
own templates since the standard and useful ones
are usually already supplied by the development
environment. Is that true?
\_ I though that an object in c++ contained a copy
of each of its parent classes, thus a class
requires more memory to store than a struct.
\_ gee, in C,
struct A {... };
extending things are in C, without requiring
struct B { struct A a; ... }
struct B is pretty damn big too.
i don't understand what you're asking. if you
want to argue "C++ hides the fact that things
get large by making it easy to bloat your code
with only a few keystrokes" i might concede,
but i don't see what the alternative way of
extending objects are in C, without requiring
identical bloat. -ali
\_ YOU ARE BLOATED, ALI
\_ man, give ali a break, he's a
good guy - ali #2 fan |
http://csua.com/feed/