3 ms·
It was hard to really see the author as being objective on the subject after reading the experiment that pitted Perl/Python programs against Java/C++ programs i
by jerluc 12y ago
It was hard to really see the author as being objective on the subject after reading the experiment that pitted Perl/Python programs against Java/C++ programs in an application requiring "string manipulation and searching against a dictionary". I'm all for trying to prove this point empirically (though I disagree with the author's stance), but in the least you've got to eliminate as many of these variables as possible (e.g. choosing typed languages that have similar string manipulation and sane collection libraries rather than pretending like working with Java HashMaps is anything near a Python dict).
Other than that, I'd say skip the over dramatized dogma and just pick the tool that suits your problem space best.
- scott_s 12y agoI'm confused by your comment. The author of this blog post had problems with the experimental design in the paper you're talking about. Specifically, he said: "However, since the scripting language group had significantly different (and easier) environment than the C-like language group, it’s hard to say how much of the measured difference in implementation time is from flaws in the experimental design and how much is real." Said another way, the experimenters picked a task which some of the languages were designed for. Which sounds rather like the point you're trying to make, too. Did you confuse the quoted abstract with this author's comment?