On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, Roger Merchberger wrote:
> Mind you, it's not a whopping lot faster, but how it can be faster (by a
> few to five percent) is this: Larry Wall (who wrote Perl) optimized it in
> such a way that any ol' schmuck (like me) says "I could do this in C!!!"
> and does so, but not as efficiently as Larry did... therefore, code in Perl
> is faster than the reworked version in C.
This isn't always true. When I wrote a de-artifacter for images captured
from a video source, I wrote it first in PERL to prove to myself the
algorithm I conceived would work; I used PERL because I am more familiar
with it than any other language.
Later, I ported the program to C which netted me a dramatic performance
increase: 15 minute processing times dropped to around a minute, while
CPU usage during the processing dropped from 100% to about 30%.
This isn't to disparage PERL at all. I like PERL. There are some things
other languages are better suited for, though.
This is mildly on topic because I use the program to clean up the archive
images I create of items in my collection. (I wrote it in the first place
because I didn't want to have to pay to have fifty plus rolls of film
developed when I could use a video camera to make the pictures for free.)
--
ok
r. r e d _at_ b e a r s . o r g
===========================
[ urs longa | vita brevis ]
Received on Fri Jan 15 1999 - 00:24:10 GMT