At 05:41 PM 9/7/2001 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>On Friday 07 September 2001 05:38 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >
> > As for perl 6 vs perl 5, that's reasonably easy. We benchmark things on
> > perl 5.004_04 and 6.x, and see who wins. If 6 doesn't, we find out why and
> > speed it up. :)
>
>5.004? (Is that where the big drop-off begins?)
Dunno. I came into perl with 5.004 (Well, 5.003_92, but close enough) and
that's the earliest perl it's feasible to benchmark, as it's the earliest
perl that's really safe. The numbers go downhill from 5.004_04 to 5.005 to
5.6. (Try a 5.004_04 build against a 5.6.1 build with any of the thread
options. Yowtch!)
>You are going to take into consideration where Perl 6 might take a little
>longer just because it has to do something 5.004 doesn't, right?
No. If the task is the same, then I don't care what perl 6 needs to do. If
we decide all integers need to be 128 bits that's fine, but we still had
damn well be faster than perl 5. If perl 6 needs to do more under the hood,
it better do it fast enough to not matter.
>(Like
>Unicode Everywhere).
Who's doing that? We're keeping things in native format as much as we can.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
