Hi, > The only argument I'm making is against the preconceived notion that a > program in C is always faster than the same program in perl. agree. there are good c programmers and bad c programmers. good ones know how to write fast c code - bad ones don't. good ones usually thinking in lowlevel asm while typing c lines. of course all this is imho.
in other side - there are lowlevel and highlevel languages. the same job programmed in lowlevel language (if done well) means longer development time and longer source code but faster result than same in a high-level language. also means more possible bugs. also, take a look at teh memory usage. my - yes, incomplete yet, but it doens't matter too much - code needs ~ 200kB of emmory - hte perl version requires ~10MB. when forking, my version forks ~200k while your forks ~10M yes, i know about copy-on-write, and there are other things too, but somehow the small c code looks much more efficient than teh big slow perl thingie but stop this useless flame - we won't agree in these. there are c-fans and there are perl-fans. i'm the c one, you are the perl one. > (if that were true, then ASM programs would be faster than C, but we > know that is false because the compiler's optimizer is usually better > than me) sorry, i 1000% disagree. at least nothing can beat asm code optimized by hand. i did it a lot, in commercial projects, and sometimes optimizing 20 lines of code took days, but finally it used every clock of every cpu pipeline, and got 70% faster than code optimized by intel's cc compiler with max optimization level. also note that most compiler can't compile/optimize vector operations (like mmx/sse/sse2 code). you have to know how doe sthe cpu works internally, what are the limitatins of the pipelines, and modify teh algorithm to optimally fit to that, then write it down in lowest-level asm language. > (it would also follow that machine-language programs are faster than faster??? rotfl > ASM programs, but that can't be true because ASM is assembled into > machine language anyways! It's just easier to read and write ascii > mnemonics than raw bits) i know... no one said that asm is faster than machine languaga - because it's the same. 1 is not greater than 1. > As for production use, run multiple spamds on separate machines and > use round-robin DNS to share the load. Or build a mosix or beowulf the usual problem - spend money on more hadrware - or spend money/time on writting faster code. > cluster to do the load-balancing across multiple machines. If you > have that much continuous mail traffic then you can certainly afford > the hardware to do that. yes, in most cases. unless, for example, when it's a mail server of a school or non-profit organization. A'rpi / Astral & ESP-team -- Developer of MPlayer, the Movie Player for Linux - http://www.MPlayerHQ.hu _______________________________________________________________ Have big pipes? SourceForge.net is looking for download mirrors. We supply the hardware. You get the recognition. Email Us: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
