Paolo Molaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
>> > oofib 100%144%132%240%212%140%136%
> oofib.imc seems to use int registers for the arguments and the
> calculations,
That's true. The brain-builtin optimizer took care of that ;) While the
code of course is valid, it d
Paolo Molaro wrote:
> On 03/21/04 Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> [...]
>
>>>oofib 100%144%132%240%212%140%136%
>
> [...]
>
>>That being said, people more conversant than me in Python/Ruby
>>(or Parrot) are welcome to carefully compare the scripts to verify that
>>the scrip
On 03/21/04 Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
[...]
> > oofib 100%144%132%240%212%140%136%
[...]
> That being said, people more conversant than me in Python/Ruby
> (or Parrot) are welcome to carefully compare the scripts to verify that
> the scripts really do implement the same tas
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> $ perl tools/dev/parrotbench.pl -c=parrotbench.conf -b='^oo'
> Numbers are relative to the first one. (lower is better)
> parrotj parrot parrotC perl-th perlpython ruby
> oo1 100%110%107%151%128%81% 110%
> oo2 100%109%1
Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My Parrot, Python, or Ruby-fu are not as strong as they should be
> (caveat applicator), but here goes nothing: I added some simple oo
> benchmarks for "getters" and "setters".
And here are recent results (with the Patch WRT classoffset I checked in
My Parrot, Python, or Ruby-fu are not as strong as they should be
(caveat applicator), but here goes nothing: I added some simple oo
benchmarks for "getters" and "setters". In the attached .tgz (destined
for examples/benchmarks) the included oon.txt explains what the heck are
all the different fil
