Actually a linked list is orthogonal to both C arrays and Perl hashes, but is somewhat similar to Perl arrays. Given that Perl arrays are partially implemented using linked lists, that shouldn't be too much of a surprise. Although, at the end of the day, anything written in C (and Perl is written in C) uses combinations of C arrays and pointers in any case - that's pretty much all there is in C.
It is easy to argue, because of the greater complexity arising from the greater size, that it takes longer per unit (lines, bytes, whatever) as the size increases. One could also argue that as the functional density increases per unit of size so does programming time (that's the comprehensibility thing). The implication is that somewhere there is a crossover point and a further implication that as functional density increases so does scalability. The interesting conclusion is that Perl is faster to code and scales better than C. And, because opportunity for bugs tends to be size related, Perl code likely has fewer bugs than the equivalent C code.
Update struck bogus comment.
In reply to Re^5: Perl vs C
by GrandFather
in thread Perl vs C
by santhosh_89
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |