Re: Re: Teach him a lesson with facts

[Anonymous Monk]

So I was right about that testing.

Now for whether that testing is meaningful. I tell what, it is meaningful. My purpose is not to show you that Perl cannot do ++ quick. What's wrong with perl is that it cannot do loop quick, as the first reply to your post agreed.

This is something serious, loop is something you used everywhether in your real program, not a testing case made up by me.

This is just a tip of the iceburger. I don't want argue about this any more. If you say this is the only performance issue in Perl, it is fine with me.

[hardburn]

I think you're misunderstanding how optimization works. Take the code posted above:

for (0..1_000_000) {
 $x=$_+1;
}

Or in C or Java:

int i, x;
for(i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) {
    x = i + 1;
}

C and Java optimizers can turn the above into this:

int x = 1000000;

Thus totally eliminating the loop. Run your C compiler with -O0, and you'll get comparible performance to the Perl version.

Why isn't this test relevent? Because the C/Java optimizer cannot always unroll loops. This is fairly common in any real-world program.

----
Reinvent a rounder wheel.

Note: All code is untested, unless otherwise stated