Re: Weekend entertainment

David Cantrell wrote, some time around 17/11/2009 13:12: On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 12:51:44PM +0100, David Landgren wrote: (I shall compose a message saying Acme is fun, etc. etc. Can anyone point me to other similar Acme modules to put this in context?) Surely it would be better to just reply

Re: flame bait: execution speed Perl vs. C (Date::Calc::PP vs. Date::Calc::XS)

* David Golden [2009-11-18 16:05]: > So creating/destroying Perl objects -- even just for things > like argument passing on the stack -- is part of the cost of > the flexibility of Perl. When that becomes a bottleneck in > a tight loop, that's when XS becomes a potential option. > > That's not a

Re: flame bait: execution speed Perl vs. C (Date::Calc::PP vs. Date::Calc::XS)

Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: This is flame bait? Why is this flame bait? well, if nothing else works, this could easily be turned into a Date::Calc vs. DateTime flame bait :-) cheers, Aldo

Re: flame bait: execution speed Perl vs. C (Date::Calc::PP vs. Date::Calc::XS)

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Jonathan Yu wrote: > Certainly I've found for tight loops with lots of calculations, XS/C > is going to be faster. Why? Because it's compiled into machine code > and executed directly on the chip. On the other hand, Perl is compiled > into bytecode which is then ex

Re: Weekend entertainment

On Nov 17, 2009, at 10:36 , Jasper wrote: 2009/11/15 David Landgren : >> I wanted to share this... Some people have no sense of humour. This came up >> on the cont...@perl.org queue. > > Rename the "offending" module Nigerian419 and all the problems are solved. FWIW the OP had also contacted the

Re: flame bait: execution speed Perl vs. C (Date::Calc::PP vs. Date::Calc::XS)

Steffen- As always, I think benchmarks are important. As you've shown below, in your case, the XS implementation certainly is faster. I think it all depends on whether the speed of the system is bound by external factors (like disk speed, speed of a network stream) or your CPU. Certainly I've fou

Re: flame bait: execution speed Perl vs. C (Date::Calc::PP vs. Date::Calc::XS)

It might be seen as "flame bait" because there have been endless discussions on the "Perl vs. C execution speed" issue on Perl newsgroups in the past. :-) 2009/11/18 Kartik Thakore > Maybe he thought there were a debate on XS v.s PP performance. If only we > could be this flame retardent in the

Re: flame bait: execution speed Perl vs. C (Date::Calc::PP vs. Date::Calc::XS)

Maybe he thought there were a debate on XS v.s PP performance. If only we could be this flame retardent in the uneeded perl5 v.s perl6 debate. Kartik Thakore On 18-Nov-09, at 7:29 AM, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: * O. STeffen BEYer [2009-11-18 13:10]: One can see from these results that t

Re: flame bait: execution speed Perl vs. C (Date::Calc::PP vs. Date::Calc::XS)

* O. STeffen BEYer [2009-11-18 13:10]: > One can see from these results that the XS version quite > consistently runs approximately about 15 times faster than the > PP version. This is flame bait? Why is this flame bait? Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis //

flame bait: execution speed Perl vs. C (Date::Calc::PP vs. Date::Calc::XS)

Dear Module Authors, recently in one of the Amsterdam Perl Mongers meetings the question came up how much faster actually the XS version of Date::Calc (Date::Calc::XS) was as compared to the Pure Perl version (Date::Calc::PP). Here is the answer (see attached script - you will need to have Date::