| To: | REALbasic NUG <realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: The perl challenge |
| From: | Jan Erik Moström <lists at mostrom dot pp dot se> |
| Date: | Fri, 8 Dec 2006 18:00:31 +0100 |
| Delivered-to: | listarchive at realsoftware dot com |
| Delivered-to: | realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com |
Imagine my surprise when it took RB a minute to do what perl did in 15 seconds. I'm not surprised that perl is faster, only HOW much faster it is. My argument was going to be, "see, difference wasn't that much, and RB is much easier to read," but these results make it no contest. So my question is: Why is RB so much slower? What is it doing that's making the difference? And could I do something to close the gap? I missed the original post so I don't know what the perl script actually did but perl is very very good at string handling and regular expressions. At some time I compared perl with other languages that also used the same regular expression for processing text files and the difference was *huge* ... in fact I'm surprised that the difference isn't bigger (assuming we're talking string processing and regular expressions).
jem
_______________________________________________
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>
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: The perl challenge, Matthew Williamson |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: The perl challenge, Kem Tekinay |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: The perl challenge, Norman Palardy |
| Next by Thread: | Re: The perl challenge, Tim Jones |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |