"Jarvis, Robert P. (Contingent)" wrote:
> 
> > From: Doug Way [mailto:dway at riskmetrics.com]
> >
> > The advantage to primitive types comes with the raw speed
> > advantage.  Although it is possible to get objects (such as
> > SmallInteger) somewhat close to primitive-type speed by using
> > various tricks, from what I've heard.
> 
> In the C/Smalltalk "duel" I mentioned earlier, not only did the C code take
> three hours to write (vs. 2 seconds for the equivalent Smalltalk), but the
> two ran at about the same speed.  I think the speed advantage of primitive
> types for everything except *perhaps* heavy-duty number crunching has been
> overstated.  In typical day-to-day use I've found that Smalltalk is as fast
> or faster than languages which support primitive types, and if you factor in
> the reduced development time of Smalltalk then the win for Smalltalk is very
> clear.  YMMV.

Agreed.  I guess I kind of meant heavy-duty number crunching when I said "raw speed", which mostly applies to simpler programs/algorithms.  The more complex your application becomes, the more important productivity becomes, so that larger/complex apps will often run faster when written in something like Smalltalk.

- Doug Way
  dway at riskmetrics.com