2 replaced http://assets.amuniversal.com/ with https://assets.amuniversal.com/
source | link

Your assumption is well founded, although it is an assumption.

I am not going to go over the reasons why compiled code should be faster than interpretted code: if you know how computers work, that will be obvious. The difference can be orders of magnitude for certain types of problem. If your reviewer seriously disputes that general case, they don't know what they are talking about.

Where they may have a point though is whether the difference is significant in the type of application you are developing. If it is mostly I/O or mostly calling compiled libraries and it doesn't have a lot of computation, the overhead of the interpretation process may indeed be insignificant.

But the point of my post is this: as an I.T. expert you will be often called to make snap decisions based on a general knowledge of how things should work. Doing a specific test might get you a more accurate answer, but it will cost a lot more and it won't get you there first.

But from time-to-time you do get caught out. It's happened to me. You make a good assumption and then you find you failed to take into account the stupidity of the world.

But I can't explain as well as my favourite Dilbert cartoon of all time. Nothing shows better than this the perils of being a smart-ass.

alt text http://assets.amuniversal.com/ba12c9506cc701301d50001dd8b71c47alt text

TL;DR: you should be right, but check the real world just in case.

Your assumption is well founded, although it is an assumption.

I am not going to go over the reasons why compiled code should be faster than interpretted code: if you know how computers work, that will be obvious. The difference can be orders of magnitude for certain types of problem. If your reviewer seriously disputes that general case, they don't know what they are talking about.

Where they may have a point though is whether the difference is significant in the type of application you are developing. If it is mostly I/O or mostly calling compiled libraries and it doesn't have a lot of computation, the overhead of the interpretation process may indeed be insignificant.

But the point of my post is this: as an I.T. expert you will be often called to make snap decisions based on a general knowledge of how things should work. Doing a specific test might get you a more accurate answer, but it will cost a lot more and it won't get you there first.

But from time-to-time you do get caught out. It's happened to me. You make a good assumption and then you find you failed to take into account the stupidity of the world.

But I can't explain as well as my favourite Dilbert cartoon of all time. Nothing shows better than this the perils of being a smart-ass.

alt text http://assets.amuniversal.com/ba12c9506cc701301d50001dd8b71c47

TL;DR: you should be right, but check the real world just in case.

Your assumption is well founded, although it is an assumption.

I am not going to go over the reasons why compiled code should be faster than interpretted code: if you know how computers work, that will be obvious. The difference can be orders of magnitude for certain types of problem. If your reviewer seriously disputes that general case, they don't know what they are talking about.

Where they may have a point though is whether the difference is significant in the type of application you are developing. If it is mostly I/O or mostly calling compiled libraries and it doesn't have a lot of computation, the overhead of the interpretation process may indeed be insignificant.

But the point of my post is this: as an I.T. expert you will be often called to make snap decisions based on a general knowledge of how things should work. Doing a specific test might get you a more accurate answer, but it will cost a lot more and it won't get you there first.

But from time-to-time you do get caught out. It's happened to me. You make a good assumption and then you find you failed to take into account the stupidity of the world.

But I can't explain as well as my favourite Dilbert cartoon of all time. Nothing shows better than this the perils of being a smart-ass.

alt text

TL;DR: you should be right, but check the real world just in case.

1
source | link

Your assumption is well founded, although it is an assumption.

I am not going to go over the reasons why compiled code should be faster than interpretted code: if you know how computers work, that will be obvious. The difference can be orders of magnitude for certain types of problem. If your reviewer seriously disputes that general case, they don't know what they are talking about.

Where they may have a point though is whether the difference is significant in the type of application you are developing. If it is mostly I/O or mostly calling compiled libraries and it doesn't have a lot of computation, the overhead of the interpretation process may indeed be insignificant.

But the point of my post is this: as an I.T. expert you will be often called to make snap decisions based on a general knowledge of how things should work. Doing a specific test might get you a more accurate answer, but it will cost a lot more and it won't get you there first.

But from time-to-time you do get caught out. It's happened to me. You make a good assumption and then you find you failed to take into account the stupidity of the world.

But I can't explain as well as my favourite Dilbert cartoon of all time. Nothing shows better than this the perils of being a smart-ass.

alt text http://assets.amuniversal.com/ba12c9506cc701301d50001dd8b71c47

TL;DR: you should be right, but check the real world just in case.