Subject: Re: STL efficiency (Was: Re: C++ briar patch (Was: Object IDs are bad)) From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: 1997/05/27 Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.functional,comp.lang.c++ Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * Hans-Juergen Boehm | Thus it seems to me the Scheme to C++ comparisons using this benchmark | don't show much, as it stands. You either need to compare the fastest | possible programs to solve a given problem, or solutions based on exactly | the same algorithms and data structures. other axes of comparison are certainly possible. for instance, you can give the same problem to top-notch (or even "average") programmers in each language and compare their results when they are "satisfied" with a solution, or give top-notch (or "average") programmers a specific time to solve the problem, and compare their results according to completeness, correctness, and execution speed. choosing exactly the same algorithm and implementing it in different languages (ignoring the cost of implementing it) would obviously ignore _algorithmic_ advantages in one language over the other, or remove the meaning from the benchmark altogether. #\Erik -- if we work harder, will obsolescence be farther ahead or closer?