Re: Camel vs. Gopher

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Camel vs. Gopher by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Dec 12, 2018 at 19:52 UTC
Being faster then perl is only a bonus. Hey now. My direct, pure Perl answer was four times faster than the original Perl presented and not even twice as slow as the go; 70% slower on my box. vr's answer, with a well-known Perl module, is two times faster than the go and kschwab's answer is ten times faster than the go and still shorter by several lines a few dozen chars. Being faster is a matter of tuning and knowing the problem space. With the evidence presented, Perl is the clear speed, space, and cognitive load winner if you know how to match it with the problem.	[reply]
Re^3: Camel vs. Gopher by morgon (Priest) on Dec 12, 2018 at 21:56 UTC
Sure :-) In this particular case where you don't even think about doing part of the work in concurrently a perl solution maybe can be optimized to even beat Go. But I can see that you're not being too serious... For me Go is the new Perl - a language with a rich ecosystem, that is fun to use and that makes things easy that where very difficult before...	[reply]
Re^4: Camel vs. Gopher by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Dec 12, 2018 at 23:22 UTC
…I am having fun but I'm being a bit serious. The Perl (plus inline C but that's there because it's easy in Perl) is TEN times faster. It leaves Go in the dust and, to me, it's easier to read. Go reads more like the new Java than the new Perl; which I might call Scala but I still like Perl better.	[reply]
Re^5: Camel vs. Gopher by morgon (Priest) on Dec 12, 2018 at 23:58 UTC
Re^6: Camel vs. Gopher by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Dec 13, 2018 at 02:06 UTC
Re^6: Camel vs. Gopher by hippo (Archbishop) on Dec 13, 2018 at 00:08 UTC
Re^6: Camel vs. Gopher by stevieb (Canon) on Dec 13, 2018 at 00:25 UTC
Re^6: Camel vs. Gopher by pwagyi (Monk) on Apr 29, 2019 at 02:24 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here
Re^2: Camel vs. Gopher by 1nickt (Canon) on Dec 12, 2018 at 20:59 UTC
Concurrency and shared data have been fun and easy and fast in Perl for quite some time, for example with MCE and MCE::Shared. The way forward always starts with a minimal test.	[reply]
Re^3: Camel vs. Gopher by marioroy (Prior) on Dec 13, 2018 at 01:49 UTC
See the MCE and MCE::Shared demonstration here.	[reply]
Re^3: Camel vs. Gopher by morgon (Priest) on Dec 12, 2018 at 22:00 UTC
That may be so. I see that you need more convincing, so here is another kill-feature of Go: Cross-compiling statically linked binaries. On my linux-system I can build binaries for Mac (or Windows) that do not have any dependencies and will simply work when I copy ONE file to another machine running a different OS. Do that with Perl.	[reply]
Re^4: Camel vs. Gopher by Anonymous Monk on May 21, 2024 at 08:17 UTC
...here is another kill-feature of Go: Cross-compiling statically linked binaries. On my linux-system I can build binaries for Mac (or Windows) that do not have any dependencies and will simply work when I copy ONE file to another machine running a different OS. Do that with Perl. DONE! (Linux + Mac + Windows + FreeBSD + OpenBSD + NetBSD + BIOS) NAME Perl::Dist::APPerl - Actually Portable Perl DESCRIPTION Actually Portable Perl (APPerl) is a distribution of Perl the runs on several x86_64 operating systems via the same binary. It builds to a single binary with perl modules packed inside of it. Cross-platform, single binary, standalone Perl applications can be made by building custom versions of APPerl, with and without compiling Perl from scratch, so it can be used an alternative to PAR::Packer. APPerl could also easily be added to development SDKs, carried on your USB drive, or just allow you to run the exact same perl on all your PCs multiple computers.	[reply]
Re^4: Camel vs. Gopher by pwagyi (Monk) on Apr 28, 2019 at 14:52 UTC
The comparison doesn't make sense since perl is not normally deployed in binary form (executable/dll). You're comparing statically compiled language with dynamic languages (like perl/python). You don't use Perl if you need such compiled language feature.	[reply]

NAME

DESCRIPTION