🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4e0af7$glv@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>,
Tom Christiansen  <tchrist@mox.perl.com> wrote:
> [courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]

>In comp.lang.perl.misc, 
>    seebs@solutions.solon.com (Peter Seebach) writes:
>:>Tom Christiansen has had a long-standing bet that someone can't give
>:>him a program in C that he can't make run no more than "e" times
>:>slower (about 2.8 for you non-math-geeks) in Perl.  So far, no one's
>:>done it.

I didn't write that.  Much though I appreciate being credited with
Merlyn's work, he said that, and I responded.

>Well, fibonacci implemented recursively is slower than that.  
>Matrix multiply is slower than that.  But most things are 
>faster than the stdly quoted 10x, mostly because I can figure
>out ways to get it to spend all its time in C.

Hmph.

>:But is it faster than GNU grep?  :)

>No, but it's much faster than std fgrep.

Uhm, not to be picky, but a distracted half-blind cat is significantl
faster than standard fgrep.

(Depends, though; whose fgrep is "standard"?  Also, on what kind of
match; I seem to recall that fgrep beat egrep on matching for any
of 200+ fixed strings, in a historical implementation.)

>    The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to
>    choose from.  -- Andrew S. Tanenbaum

I've been wondering who said that.  Thx.

-s
[Courtesy cc: of this posting copied to /dev/null.]
-- 
Peter Seebach - seebs@solon.com - Copyright 1995 Peter Seebach.
C/Unix proto-wizard -- C/Unix questions? Send mail for help.  No, really!
Using trn?  Weird new newsgroup problem?  I know the fix!  Email me!
The *other* C FAQ - ftp taniemarie.solon.com /pub/c/afq - Not A Flying Toy