Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jpl-devvax!lwall
From: lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.perl
Subject: Re: speed: V2 verses V3
Message-ID: <6609@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Date: 15 Dec 89 18:41:23 GMT
References: <1808@uvaarpa.virginia.edu>
Reply-To: lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Lines: 26

In article <1808@uvaarpa.virginia.edu> schwartz@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu writes:
: Just for fun I compared the speed of perl 2.0 with perl 3.0
: using the pi computing demo by W. Kebsch <nixpbe!kebsch>
: (minus the reporting of intermediate results.)
: 
: psuvax1% perl-2 pi.pl 200
: [u=15.7833  s=.8  cu=0.0166667  cs=.116667]
: psuvax1% perl-3 pi.pl 200
: [u=22.6333  s=1.05  cu=0.0166667  cs=0.0666667]

This doesn't surprise me at all.  I've done absolutely no optimization
on math operations, and the changes to the run-time system to allow
arrays to be passed around more freely (it's more of a stack machine
now) could certainly adversely affect some of the operations done in pi.pl.
However, I'm better poised now to be able to make a perl-to-C translator.

In fact, I've worried very little about performance for 3.0.  My intent
was to get the interface into a stable configuration, and then worry
about performance.  Patches which enhance performance cause few problems,
but patches which change the interface can bring on lots of headaches.

I'd be more interested in comparisons of text processing performance.
You'll probably find that some tasks are a lot faster, some are a little
faster, and some are a little slower.  Hopefully a net gain.

Larry