Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!nott!cunews!dbuck
From: dbuck@superior.carleton.ca (Dave Buck)
Subject: Re: The Future of Smalltalk Performance?
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: superior.carleton.ca
Message-ID: <DLKFFH.6sz@cunews.carleton.ca>
Sender: news@cunews.carleton.ca (News Administrator)
Organization: Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
References: <4crvvl$jd5@news.jf.intel.com> <4dn5c0$aq8@rex.sfe.com.au> <DLHLvM.BDq@cunews.carleton.ca> <4duhau$t40@rex.sfe.com.au>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 04:35:41 GMT
Lines: 27

In article <4duhau$t40@rex.sfe.com.au>, Paul Hatchman <paul@sfe.com.au> wrote:
>My rejection is based on my experience of using the two languages and from
>the successful projects I have seen people use the two languages for.
>
>I think we work in different problem areas and so our experiences are different.
>For example I dont think you would see much difference in performance between
>the two languages in a system that was heavily database server bound, which
>might have just as much sql "code" as smalltalk/c++ code.

My benchmarks show that Smalltalk is poor for heavy integer and
floating point arithmetic.  If your application domain involved this
sort of work, Smalltalk won't perform as well as C++.  For memory
allocation/de-allocation, Smalltalk is faster due to the garbage
collector and for collections Smalltalk was as fast and often faster
than C++.  I didn't benchmark database access.

What is your problem domain, by the way?


David Buck
dbuck@ccs.carleton.ca

_________________________________
| David K. Buck                 |
| dbuck@ccs.carleton.ca         |
| The Object People             |
|_______________________________|
