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

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

From: greggirwin:mindspring at: 9-Nov-2002 12:27

Hi Joel,
>> >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. >> >
I'm probably just not saying what I'm thinking very clearly, or my mind was on a different track (read - derailed :). In any case, yes, the above goal is stated clearly, and your other replies have helped also. My question was targeted at the implementation of the test (custom versus standard) with this overall goal in mind. I.e. we have to sub-goals. JN> Where do you see a "disadvantage"? Of the languages I proposed... Sorry, I was thinking in more general terms than just the languages currently proposed. However, Java is at least byte-code compiled in all cases, correct? It may be JIT'd as well. C is the reference point, so it is a special case IMO (i.e. how fast *could* something run). JN> I don't have any firm preconceived notions about what the results will JN> look like (except for C usually being fastest), but let's not be too JN> quick to wave the white flag just because REBOL isn't the fastest JN> language for all tests! Brute speed is only one of many factors that JN> go into a language decision, and for 90% of what I do, "fast enough" JN> is the key issue, rather than "fastest". Agreed. No white flags here. JN> It's interesting that I would have reversed the labels. My original JN> intent was for the tasks to be small but realistic ("applied") in JN> nature, and the "standard" solution to be the kind of thing that a JN> reasonable programmer (though not a Grand Master of any particular JN> language) would think to write. The custom solutions, where the JN> esoterica of a particular language's world view emerge, seems much JN> more "academic" to me. My thinking is that the "acadaemic" version refers to something that is worth knowing (how it performs against a particular algorithm) but isn't what you would actually use on a day-to-day basis. "applied" is what you do (e.g. calling SORT rather than writing your own - notwithstanding special cases where SORT just won't do). Maybe the esoteric solutions are a third category, though I don't know how much we want to fragment things. I don't know that esoteric solutions are really useful in this context. If you're talking about solving problems in unique and interesting ways, yes, but not here. --Gregg