Almost OT: How can that be?

From: Hans Franke <Hans.Franke_at_mch20.sbs.de>
Date: Fri Jan 15 08:28:37 1999

> > 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%.

I guess you used a lot of low level calculations for
your job - and the speed of PERL comes only thru when
you need the offered high level funcionality. As more
low level you need, as more C is interesting, since
it offers nothing beside low level funcionality - and
when it comes to over all functionality of course
nothing can beat an Assembler (within a sophisticated
programming environment :).

Servus
Hans

--
Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut
HRK
Received on Fri Jan 15 1999 - 08:28:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:32:06 BST