[PLUG] Efficiency of Compiled vs. Interpreted Languages

dcouch at gmail.com dcouch at gmail.com
Mon Feb 8 22:36:25 UTC 2010


Well then-here's the obligatory "write it yourself!" =)
------Original Message------
From: Tim Wescott
Sender: plug-bounces at lists.pdxlinux.org
To: General Linux/UNIX discussion and help;civil and on-topic
ReplyTo: General Linux/UNIX discussion and help;civil and on-topic
Subject: Re: [PLUG] Efficiency of Compiled vs. Interpreted Languages
Sent: Feb 8, 2010 14:33

Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>>>>>> "S" == S Michael Convey <smconvey at gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>             
>
> S> I've tested perl programs before, same program ran through an interpreter,
> S> and then same program ran as compiled machine code. And the compiled version
> S> wasn't just 2 times faster, it was WAY faster...but I can't remember by what
> S> factor.
>
> You were probably comparing apples and oranges though.
>
> The Perl statement "$x = $y * $z" does a *lot* more work than the C statement
> "x = y * z", because a Perl scalar is a lot fancier than a C variable.
>
> If you had compared Perl's PDL libs against your C program (where you can
> actually use native data types instead of Perl's fancy data types), I think
> you'd find it to be far closer, perhaps within a factor of two again.
>
> But I'm tired of trying to fight the ignorance around this.  It's about
> how much your language is doing for you, not whether it's "interpreted"
> or "compiled".
>   
Cool.  Where can I get a Perl interpreter that'll work on an 8-bit 
processor with 128 bytes of RAM?

(Sorry -- I just had to stir the pot).

-- 
Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
Voice: 503-631-7815
Cell:  503-349-8432
http://www.wescottdesign.com


_______________________________________________
PLUG mailing list
PLUG at lists.pdxlinux.org
http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug


Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry


More information about the PLUG mailing list