Language comparisons

[Emile van Sebille]

---------
"Doug Bagley" <usenet.2001-05-09 at bagley.org> wrote in message
news:m34ruvj5lf.fsf at ns.bagley.org...
> Gerrit Muller <gerrit.muller at philips.com> writes:
> > One of the items you are obviously struggling with is the balance
> > between the different criteria: do you program to optimize
> > time-to-result, maintenance, performance or memory usage? This question
> > pops up for every individual test.
>
> For the most part, solutions on my site should be written first to be
> fast, second to be memory economical, and probably none were really
> written to be conservative in "lines of code", since I just added that
> metric very recently.  I would probably reject a solution if I felt it
> was a flagrant memory waster, since you can't really get away with
> that in real life

<snip>

I think that in today's world of dedicated servers for applications and
cheap memory (cheap everything! ;-) you're going to find memory hogs.  It
may not be "wasting" memory, but cache intensive applications written to
expect hits rather than misses are now a part of real life.

I think where it matters is in the expected scaling capabilities of the
application.  For example, if your application caches 3M records in a 700Mb
memory footprint, perhaps you can scale to 9M in 2Gb; scaling to handle 20M
or 200M records is where the problems come in.

--

Emile van Sebille
emile at fenx.com