Linked by ebasconp on Fri 10th Jun 2011 22:22 UTC
Permalink for comment 476856
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/15/13 22:44 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-01-28
I didn't see anything about which compilers they chose to compare.
Performance characteristics not the result of language syntax so much as the implementation of the compilers and supporting libraries. Google should have known this from the get go, so why didn't they compare implementations?
The significant variation in performance between C/C++ compilers clearly prove (as if any proof was needed) that compiler implementations do matter.
Another point is that some language implementations (eiffel) compile down to C and then are compiled/optimized by the C compiler.
The question of which language syntax performs better is meaningless.