REV, RB, SC speed test, Latest results

[James Richards]

on 20/4/04 10:43:45 +0200, Norman Winn wrote:

> 1)  Can any of you consider this to be a fair comparison? You, the
> 'you' being probably the best RR programmers on the planet, have had a
> couple of weeks to optimise RR's algorithm. Has the sense of justice in
> anyone pushed them to pass the challenge to the RB list?
Ken Ray mentioned this a couple of days ago. I don't know if it's been acted
on. Incidentally, on *this* list the thread was started only 5 days ago
though it may have been already happening elsewhere a couple of weeks ago.

> 
> 2) One of the suggested strengths of Revolution is the simplicity of
> getting things done. Why should such a common task take such a lot of
> optimisation to produce the best results? Are not the 'out of the box'
> solutions i.e. those that will be produced by the average user, a
> fairer comparison?
This issue should be raised on the RB list too - can it be done efficiently
out of the box, or does it need some optimizing (and if it can be done
efficiently out of the box does that present catches or other problems when
trying to do some of the more basic (but slower in Rev) things?

> 
> 3) On a more positive note, the possibilities of optimisation have
> revealed to me a rich programming environment underlying the IDE,

A not inconsiderable factor in itself when making a choice.

James Richards (another interested watcher)
-- 
James J Richards

jamesjrichards at lineone.net

Tel. +44 (0)15394 43063