The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 |
Newsgroups: borland.public.delphi.non-technical, borland.public.cppbuilder.non-technical
From: Robert Lee <rh...@nwu.edu>
Date: 2000/02/10
Subject: Re: String Tests was: Delphi vs C++ Performance Comparison
NeilB wrote: Unquestioningly any given test is of only marginal significance. The > John Jacobson <john...@xnet.com> wrote in message news:38a30e3e@dnews... > > How about this for the strings tests? > [complex string manipulation spec snipped] > Your post moved me to articulate my thoughts on bechmarking VC++ versus > Almost by definition, this [snipped test] would test something, but I'm not goal here is to have multiple tests so that the individual tests aren't so heavily weighted. This particular test is roughly a mix of several replacment schemes. I could imagine many "cheats" to optimise this (convert the > whole thing to lowercase first, keep a list of occurences of words With the entire process being open, the idea is to construct all > beginning with "th" as you read the thing in, maintain two collections one > which sorts forward, and one backwards etc.) but what would it prove? versions with the same fundamental algorithm. If say the C++ version is faster then that algorithm could readily be tried in OP. Besides, that is only the 1/3 of each test. The other parts are more restricted, for instance the "simplest" category might be *really* simple in say OP but probably alot slower than the simplest C++ version. > Personally, I use C++ for the server side of things (COM etc.) and Again, the idea here is to general a non-artificial test. It *is* worth > Delphi/BCB/VB for the GUI, and this works out really well. Nobody is going > to select Delphi or BCB as a development tool because it is faster (or > slower) than VC++ for a particular artificial test little on its own, but this is just one piece. Eventually there will be many pieces with many (hopefully) from real world problems. - things like training > costs, availability of knowlegeable staff etc. will be much more important. these are important short term. Long term is a different story. Many people use C++ (and VC++) because they believe the are "supposed" to. I see this all the time. I often run into a lot of flak for using pascal for my simulators. "Oh my god! you should use a "real" language like C++ or fortran, your sims would be so much faster". I then proceed to explain that this is simply not true, that I pay very little if anything for my choice and my development time is dramatically less. They typically remain unconvinced. What I would really like to do is be able to throw some numbers at them. > Bottom line: can't we push Delphi (and BCB) as being complementary to Complementary? Do you mean comparable? I definitely think we can make a > VC++??? statement about how they compare to VC++. Borland has been loathe to do this, probably because they wouldn't "win" However, what if they loose by only 5%? Would you pick VC over BCB and all its RAD tools because of such a small difference? -- You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||