From: Jin Sun (jinsun_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-11-22 15:38:46
the comparison is very impressive.
i've been trying to find some proof to convince myself to use more
boost.regex than perl.
thanks
Jeff Garland wrote:
> John Maddock wrote:
>
>> Jeff Garland wrote:
>>
>
>
>>> That said, it's one data point and what you're doing may have totally
>>> different results. That's not to mention the effect of the compiler
>>> -- gcc doesn't have a greatest reputation for optimization although
>>> it's been improving. And, you're also depending on other programmers
>>> to write good benchmarks.
>>>
>> Yep, looking at the source code for the test, my first impression is that
>> most of the time is likely to be taken up with the iostream code. I also
>>
>
> Interesting...
>
>
>> notice that the C-language PCRE test takes almost exactly the same amount of
>> time as the two C++ / Boost-Regex tests, in spite of avoiding high level
>> constructs like std::string.
>>
>
> Yeah, it makes me generally suspicious about the benchmark quality when a
> scripting language like perl outperforms C -- just because the internals of
> perl (and most everything else for that matter) are written in C. But in the
> case of regex I guess I can believe that the perl folks may have written a
> highly optimized regex implementation (in C of course) that makes things run fast.
>
> > Might be tempting to try and do better...
>
> As I understand the shootout rules you're free to make it better :-)
>
> Jeff
> _______________________________________________
> Boost-users mailing list
> Boost-users_at_[hidden]
> http://listarchives.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
>
>
--
Jin Sun
MS-CS
Michigan Technological University
1400 Townsend Dr.
Houghton, MI-49931.
Phone #: (906) 370 2261(H)
(906) 487 4305(O)
http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~jinsun