|
On Mar 18, 2007, at 7:06 AM, Daniel Silverstone wrote:
I don't believe they're all that representative. I called it 'unscientific' for that reason. As the benchmarks show on the relative performance of languages is severely dependent on the actual benchmark. All that 'nfib' is good for is to show whether the language implementors have done their homework.
I've written larger chunks of software in Python before. When things got to slow I moved the critical part into a C module. Lua allows you to do the same, so the speed is not that relevant to me. The Lua side of your program should deal with high-level abstractions most of the time, and leave the bit-twiddling to C routines. This is where good software design comes in. Gé -- Gé Weijers |