C++ performance myths debunked
gerson.kurz at t-online.de
Sat Aug 3 08:18:05 CEST 2002
On 03 Aug 2002 12:45:19 +0800, Isaac To <kkto at csis.hku.hk> wrote:
>This is about the most stupid "debunk" to C++ efficiency. You use the place
>where Python give you the most performance, a module written completely in C
>(the split method). And then you compare it against the place where C++
>give you the worst performance, namely a deep template written in a way to
>give easy correctness rather than good performance (boost). And now you
>claim that C++ is no better than Python.
I'm not claiming that C++ is no better than Python. I'm claiming, and
I quote: "Coming from C++ I always had suspicions about the
performance about all those neat string ops Python has - but it now
seems I have to reconsider some of my preconceptions". This is what I
said, this is what I meant.
It would be foolish to think that Python is, always, on a par with C++
performance. It is not.
Plus, I'm claiming that template syntax sucks pretty bad.
More information about the Python-list