🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <316971B0.FEF@amd.com>, "Paul G. Schaaf, Jr." <paul.schaaf@amd.com> writes:
> 
>    Try his experiment and you will see a set of problems for which the speed of 
> Smalltalk compares to that of c/c++.  You may dismiss this set of problems as 
> "bizarre", but as the size of that set increases, so does its importance.  
> 
>   Many (note that I am not saying all) c/c++ programmers claim that "Smalltalk 
> is slow," and therefore dismiss it.  This is wrong for two reasons: 
>       1. If speed were the only measure of value we'd all 
>          be programming in Assembler (or tuning c compiler-
>          generated Assembler).  
>       2. Smalltalk is much faster than many people think.  
> 
> The fact is that Smalltalk can do a few things faster than c/c++, and some 
> things as fast.  I would also argue that most of the remaining things in 
> Smalltalk are not "significantly slower" than c/c++.  This point is debatable 
> as it depends upon the requirement of your domain.  
> 
> It would be nice if we all had the resources to evaluate each of these 
> languages fairly.  Smalltalk is shortchanged if the programmer writes only 
> c/c++-style code, just as c++ is shortchanged if the programmer writes only 
> c-style code.  
> 

Which things makes Smalltalk faster than c/c++ ? 
And which things are as fast ?
Is some sample code available ?

I am very interesting to make some tests and learn from this examples.
Can someone post examples or post references to them ?

bye,

Helmut Krendl


      _/    _/    _/  Helmut Krendl
    _/_/  _/_/  _/_/  Software-Engineering
  _/  _/_/  _/_/  _/  email: krendl@vai.co.at
_/    _/  _/_/    _/  Tel. +43 / (732) 6592-9558
_/      _/_/      _/  Fax. +43 / (732) 6592-2089
_/    _/_/  _/    _/
_/  _/_/  _/_/  _/    V O E S T -- A L P I N E
_/_/  _/_/  _/_/      Industrieanlagenbau GmbH 
_/    _/    _/        Turmstr. 44, A-4030 Linz