Bartc said:
>
> "Richard Heathfield" <rjh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:YKmdnTjH8aINu73VnZ2dnUVZ8uKdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Bartc said:
>>
<snip>
>>> 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.
>
> But the Java startup isn't 1200000ms; whatever it is, it's no more than
> 58ms in this case, which is insignificant; probably less than the time
it
> took to press the Enter key or click the button to start the test.
If it's insignificant, why bother to raise it in the first place?
> Suppose the C startup was 0ms, and that of Java was 50ms. And supposing
> you were testing an empty program, which, with inevitable OS overheads
> (loading the executable etc), took 1ms in each case. 1ms and 51ms. What
> would you conclude from that?
That would depend on whether I expected my conclusion to be read by bright
people.
--
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
|
