View Single Post
Old 11-28-2010, 11:09 AM   #6
kovidgoyal
creator of calibre
kovidgoyal ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kovidgoyal ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kovidgoyal ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kovidgoyal ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kovidgoyal ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kovidgoyal ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kovidgoyal ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kovidgoyal ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kovidgoyal ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kovidgoyal ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kovidgoyal ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
kovidgoyal's Avatar
 
Posts: 45,455
Karma: 27757438
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Mumbai, India
Device: Various
Sigh, yet another silly loop speed test. These are completely irrelevant to real world application performance.

[QUOTE=cipri;1240208]
Quote:
Originally Posted by chaley View Post
Rewriting calibre in C++ would be a multi-person-year effort. In the end, we would have something that might or might not be appreciably faster/QUOTE]

Look here at a comparision between the language Python and Cobra.
The result is devastating.

http://cobra-language.com/forums/vie...2&hilit=python

Here you see that in some cases Cobra can be hundrets of times faster than python.
I don't know both languages, because use exclusively c++, but the comparision between cobra and python, showes me that it could bring a lot of speed to have calibre written in c++, using QT.

python might be suitable for little programs, but calibre has to do a greater job.

And c++ is not always hard to maintain, it depends on the quality of the design.
kovidgoyal is online now   Reply With Quote