|
| This Article | ||
| ||
| Share | ||
| Bibliographic References | ||
| Add to: | ||
 Digg  Furl  Spurl  Blink  Simpy  Google  Del.icio.us  Y!MyWeb | ||
| Search | ||
| ||
| ASCII Text | x | ||
| Lutz Prechelt, "An Empirical Comparison of Seven Programming Languages," Computer, vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 23-29, October, 2000. | |||
| BibTex | x | ||
| @article{ 10.1109/2.876288, author = {Lutz Prechelt}, title = {An Empirical Comparison of Seven Programming Languages}, journal ={Computer}, volume = {33}, number = {10}, issn = {0018-9162}, year = {2000}, pages = {23-29}, doi = {http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/2.876288}, publisher = {IEEE Computer Society}, address = {Los Alamitos, CA, USA}, } | |||
| RefWorks Procite/RefMan/Endnote | x | ||
| TY - MGZN JO - Computer TI - An Empirical Comparison of Seven Programming Languages IS - 10 SN - 0018-9162 SP23 EP29 EPD - 23-29 A1 - Lutz Prechelt, PY - 2000 VL - 33 JA - Computer ER - | |||
Often heated, debates regarding different programming languages' effectiveness remain inconclusive because of scarce data and a lack of direct comparisons. The author addresses that challenge, comparatively analyzing 80 implementations of the phonecode program in seven different languages (C, C++, Java, Perl, Python, Rexx, and Tcl). Further, for each language, the author analyzes several separate implementations by different programmers. The comparison investigates several aspects of each language, including program length, programming effort, run-time efficiency, memory consumption, and reliability. The author uses comparisons to present insight into program language performance. For example, the study indicates that Java's memory overhead is still huge compared to C or C++, but its runtime efficiency has become quite acceptable. The scripting languages, however, offer reasonable alternatives to C and C++, even for tasks that must handle fair amounts of computation and data.