Xref: utzoo comp.lang.eiffel:248 comp.lang.c++:3593
Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zephyr!tektronix!tekcrl!tekgvs!jans
From: jans@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Jan Steinman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Eiffel vs. C++ (vs Smalltalk)
Message-ID: <5316@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM>
Date: 8 Jun 89 18:15:13 GMT
Followup-To: comp.lang.eiffel
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.
Lines: 18

<mgardi@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (M.Gardi - ICR)>
<A more meaningful comparison to me would be the executable size of two large 
"algorithmically equivalent" programs.>

We have an application that is implemented in both Smalltalk and 
C++/Interviews/X11.  When compiled with debugging on, the C++ version is much 
slower and nearly as large as the whole Smalltalk image, which contains much 
more functionality, and always has debugging available.

This is not meant to start any kind of war, simply to point out than many 
comparisons of the sort compare apples with oranges.  With debugging off, the 
C++ version is about 1/6 the size of the whole Smalltalk image, although 
graphics performance is still slower -- probably due to the many layers of 
software needed, while Smalltalk is able to BitBlt.

:::::: Jan Steinman - N7JDB		   Electronic Systems Laboratory ::::::
:::::: jans@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM	      Box 500, MS 50-370 (w)503/627-5881 ::::::
:::::: jsteinma@caip.RUTGERS.EDU     Beaverton, OR 97077 (h)503/657-7703 ::::::