yeah, we're just better then awk!
Tue Mar 4 10:21:45 CET 2003
> Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:19:35 -0500
> From: Shawn Pearce <>
> Subject: Re: yeah, we're just better then awk!
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Disposition: inline
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
> Given the number of languages he implemented in, I have
> to wonder how good his implementation was in anything,
> save C or Java. :)
they are not all his implementations. anybody can send in a version.
most exotic languages have other authors.
> Also, the tests are very small tests that only test
> simple operations. Nearly all languages have about
> the same number of lines of code, each test does no
> useful work,
are we talking about http://www.bagley.org/~doug/shootout ?
most of the tests there do real work (ex: word count, sorting,
reversing, adding numbers) on file contents.
> and the tests run fast on bare hardware
> and slower when higher levels are in the way. Thus
> they are unfairly biased against the native compiled
> languages. Its also unfairly biased against apps
> that can startup/shutdown very fast, which both
> Java and Erlang don't do well. SAE may have
> faired better.
i do not think it is unfairly biased. for this kind of problems it is a
good thing to be fast in startup and excution speed.
moreover, some of the languages that are fast are very high level (ex:
ocaml, haskell, sml).
perhaps you mean that the higher levels are virtual machines?
More information about the erlang-questions