X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Message-ID:	<1436302589.678.108.camel@ssalewski.de>
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] gEDA/gschem still alive?
From:	Stefan Salewski <mail AT ssalewski DOT de>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Tue, 07 Jul 2015 22:56:29 +0200
In-Reply-To:	<E90F2D99-6421-4D1A-BF28-73992A21BA1F@icloud.com>
References:	<1435510363 DOT 682 DOT 26 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de>
	<20150703030409 DOT 32398 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se>
	<CAFC5WMoa2-z6bNca_bQN+jmMR260UBmoJQybUzH=L2TrBpzNNA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<1436006726 DOT 677 DOT 13 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de>
	<20150706200609 DOT GD24178 AT localhost DOT localdomain>
	<CAC4O8c9f0pLsLu_dyuO5ggh7RmHY1vAA=UUhk9AE0JYZb4mhBQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<CAM2RGhQfPO31-1Uyc3kC7w286r0VD7c41UZEZcyYquzknCxbsQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<20150707060409 DOT GB14357 AT localhost DOT localdomain>
	<CAOP4iL2C_LU=RQy5FWYF-7RrHW6tqhqqyFJGjkwLQ2AD7FiYJA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<1436287952 DOT 678 DOT 26 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <559C0F7E DOT 7010009 AT neurotica DOT com>
	<1436295556 DOT 678 DOT 91 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de>
	<E90F2D99-6421-4D1A-BF28-73992A21BA1F AT icloud DOT com>
X-Mailer:	Evolution 3.12.11
Mime-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Tue, 2015-07-07 at 20:38 +0100, Chris Smith (space DOT dandy AT icloud DOT com)
[via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
> Is it really that those languages have become faster, or is it simply
> that the advances in CPU processing power means that the differences
> between them are drowned out by other bottlenecks, like IO? I wonder
> if you'd get similar results if these languages were benchmarked on a
> 486?

I really think that the results are not determined by other bottlenecks,
at least I have never heard about that. There seems to be really great
advances in all that computer language design techniques in the last 10
years. Ten years  ago I read everywhere that compiling high level
languages like Python or Ruby to native assembler code would be nearly
impossible. Now we have Crystal, which is very Ruby like, developed in
few years from a small group in Argentinia. Or Julia, similar to Matlab,
but fast as C -- not always. And Java, considered slow 20 Years ago, now
faster than C in some cases. I don't know much about language
development unfortunately. CLang with LLVM seems to have contributed
much to that development. Research for all the Academic languages too.
For Java I read that companies have invested gigantic amount of man
power to increase speed.

- Raw text -