Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search

[REBOL] Re: RFC: Cross-language benchmark proposal

From: joel:neely:fedex at: 8-Nov-2002 14:04

Hi, Gregg, Gregg Irwin wrote:
> Lots of good ideas flowing here, which brings me back to a > question I posted but that people may not have had a chance > to respond to. > > What is our goal? >
I thought I *did* address that question with a short list of (what I thought were) reasonable goals, and Carl S indicated his preference for the first one on the list.
> ... I like Option 1. > > And, we know between us that we're not trying to convert > everyone for all uses, but offer a useful tool that we > personally find to save us time in the long run... > > > > >Option 1 > >> > > >Goal: Demonstrate to the world that REBOL is a viable, > > competitive language for many common programming tasks > > (where "competitive" is defined in terms of run time > > performance). > > > >Audience: Developers at large. > > > > REBOL, being a pure inpterpreter is going to be at a disadvantage > in some areas, but have advantages in others. >
Where do you see a "disadvantage"? Of the languages I proposed...
> Languages: C, Java, Perl, Python, REBOL
... *all* of the others but C are usually implemented via interpreter. I don't have any firm preconceived notions about what the results will look like (except for C usually being fastest), but let's not be too quick to wave the white flag just because REBOL isn't the fastest language for all tests! Brute speed is only one of many factors that go into a language decision, and for 90% of what I do, "fast enough" is the key issue, rather than "fastest".
> Maybe the Standard and Custom views are more like a distinction > between "academic" and "applied"? The Academic view is like the > other shootout, and the Applied view is comparing how you would > actually use it on a daily basis and how ranks in that context > (speed, clarity, etc.). > > What do you think? >
It's interesting that I would have reversed the labels. My original intent was for the tasks to be small but realistic ("applied") in nature, and the "standard" solution to be the kind of thing that a reasonable programmer (though not a Grand Master of any particular language) would think to write. The custom solutions, where the esoterica of a particular language's world view emerge, seems much more "academic" to me. -jn- -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Neely joelDOTneelyATfedexDOTcom 901-263-4446