From: janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com   
      
   On 27.10.2025 13:58, bart wrote:   
   > On 27/10/2025 12:50, bart wrote:   
   >   
   >>     Lua 5.4         0.65   
   >   
   >> Here's an example not related to my stuff:   
   >>   
   >>    c:\cx>tim tcc lua.c   
   >>    Time: 0.120   
   >>   
   >> This builds the Lua intepreter in 1/8th of a second. Now, Tiny C   
   >> generally produces indifferent code (ie. slow). Still, I get this   
   >> result from my benchmark:   
   >>   
   >>     Lua 5.4         0.65        (lua.exe built using Tiny C)   
   >>   
   >> It's still at least FIVE TIMES FASTER than A68G!   
   >   
   > Oops! I forgot to update the timing after copying that line. The proper   
   > figure should be:   
   >   
   >      Lua 5.4         1.5  seconds   
   >   
      
   And what have you gained or lost in practice by this 0.85 seconds   
   delta?   
      
   (Clearly, you're wasting your time on marginalities! And thereby   
   completely missing or ignoring the more important factors.)   
      
   >   
   > So, sorry it's only 3 times as fast as A68G! And only twice as fast as   
   > compiled A68G code, if you forget about the latter's compilation time.   
   >   
   > Here, also, you can build the Lua interpreter from source each time   
   > (adding 0.12 seconds), and it would *still* be faster than A68G.   
      
   Lua is not Algol 68. (Again comparing apples to oranges! Or just   
   another try of a red herring.)   
      
   >   
   > Not impressed? I thought not.   
      
   I'm sure non-dimensionally thinking folks may be impressed.   
      
   Janis   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)