Bartc said:
> [copy of post sent to c.l.c++]
> "Richard Heathfield" <rjh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:-9OdnXIZ5Pjbgr3VnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Razii said:
>>
>>> On Tue, 06 May 2008 08:28:15 +0000, Richard Heathfield
>>> <rjh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>C: 0.003
>>>>C++: 0.021
>>>>Java: 0.058
>>>
>>> I haven't tested your C version yet, but these times are too low.
>>
>> I thought that getting the lowest time was the whole point!
>>
>> But to put your mind at rest, these times are for the 6KB test file. I
>> couldn't be bothered to go looking for the 14MBer.
>
> These timings do look too low to be measured accurately.
I sometimes wonder about this universe. Did nobody see what I wrote
originally? And I quote: "I conclude on the basis of this FULLY
REPRESENTATIVE AND STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT SAMPLE that C rocks, Java
sucks, and C++ isn't sure which it is."
Now then, let's start simple. Can you spell "iron"? And do you know what
it
means? If so, we can build up from there.
> It's possible C++ and Java have some start-up delays in which case you
> cannot compare /runtimes/ reliably.
Rubbish. It takes how long it takes. If WonderfulNewLanguage*= can process
the data in a time comparable to, say, Java, *provided* you discount
WonderfulNewLanguage*='s 20-minute startup delay, does that mean
WonderfulNewLanguage*= is as good at Java over that "distance"? Clearly
not. When you're racing for money, you don't give head starts.
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www.
+rjh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
|
