Re: For performance, write it in C - Part 2, comparing C, Ruby and Java
- From: "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <znmeb@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 22:49:29 +0900
Peter Hickman wrote:
There you have it, C is still faster by an order of magnitude. Performance is yours for the asking, but it comes at a price - you have to write it in C. Ease of development also comes at a price, you don't get the same performance as C. Of course if you have a fear of C this does show that you can go some of the way by converting to Java, if that is fast enough for you then well and good but know this, C is faster.In my younger days, I did a lot of development in assembler languages, and for many years my main high-level language was FORTRAN. Towards the end of my FORTRAN days (about 1990) I was still dropping into assembler for speed, even though the (FORTRAN) compilers were quite good by that time. C compilers really sucked, especially for numerical applications.
Now here's where I'm going to put on my asbestos suit. I think the difficulty of C development is *vastly* exaggerated by the fans of "dynamic/scripting/interpreted" languages! In addition, I think the difficulty of *assembler* development is vastly exaggerated, except in bizarre architectures. (Of course, x86 does border on bizarre, until you get to 64-bit addressing). :)
So what is the source of "fear of C?"
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: For performance, write it in C - Part 2, comparing C, Ruby and Java
- From: William James
- Re: For performance, write it in C - Part 2, comparing C, Ruby and Java
- From: John Gabriele
- Re: For performance, write it in C - Part 2, comparing C, Ruby and Java
- Prev by Date: Re: For performance, write it in C - Part 2, comparing C, Ruby and Java
- Next by Date: Re: Ruby::Tk on OS X event binding hint
- Previous by thread: Re: For performance, write it in C - Part 2, comparing C, Ruby and Java
- Next by thread: Re: For performance, write it in C - Part 2, comparing C, Ruby and Java
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
