RunRev vs RealBasic (Richard Gaskin)
chipp at chipp.com
Thu Jan 20 17:55:36 EST 2005
In fairness to Rev, there was no stipulation regarding how many lines of
code it take to generate the results. In fact, one could concatenate all
lines of the Rev code using ';' to solve the problem in only 1 line of
Also, there are certainly different things going on in the two code
snippets you posted. In RB, variables are not declared, but in Rev some
are instantiated-- not to mention the MD5digest reset switch (only in
the Rev code). Also, as I recall, this project was a 'moving target.'
Once Rev posted a 'winning time', the challenge changed benefiting RB.
Assuming 'readability' and 'maintainability' were set as primary goals,
it's hard to deny Xtalk languages excel in both areas.
All that said, it does look like either application can handle string
parsing w/out problems.
David Grogono wrote:
> A number of small clarifications on this. The person who started the speed
> comparison was not an "RB fan" but rather a SuperCard user evaluating both
> REALbasic and Revolution. His initial attempt found that REALbasic was
> significantly faster than Revolution. After both sets of code were further
> optimized the speed differences were negligible. The primary difference
> after optimization is the readability and maintainability of the code. The
> guts of the routine in REALbasic is 6 lines of code but 37 lines of code in
> Revolution. As for the speed of the load, the results are probably
> misleading for REALbasic because it includes the first step of string
> processing. Either way the load is extremely fast in both environments and
> it's a tiny tiny fraction of the total task. Here's the code for each
> environment: copied from <http://www.yav.com/speed.html>
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.0 - Release Date: 1/17/2005
More information about the Use-livecode