site_archiver@lists.apple.com Delivered-To: darwin-dev@lists.apple.com Am 10.10.2005 um 09:34 schrieb Derick Centeno: From: Marc Van Olmen <marc@sky4studios.be> Date: September 2, 2005 8:37:31 AM EDT To: darwin-dev@lists.apple.com Subject: mySQL benchmark on OS X and Linux (same 2.5ghz G5 hardware) Interesting findings: Markus - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl. Ing. Markus Hitter http://www.jump-ing.de/ _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Darwin-dev mailing list (Darwin-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/darwin-dev/site_archiver%40lists.appl... An independent analysis studying OS X in comparison to Yellow Dog Linux was posted to this list sometime ago and may be of interest: <http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2520> If you watched the following discussion as well, you surely noticed this analysis is as inaccurate as an analysis can be. They didn't even bother to install Mac OS X Server to test server capabilities. They didn't notice the slower but far more secure way Mac OS X enforces writing data to disk. I'm partial to C++ because objects are easy to develop and update regarding what your tasks are. C++ is one of many object-oriented languages, only. In fact, I'd recommend it if you need cross-platform code, only. FWIW. Objective-C has a much cleaner design and is supported on Mac OS X at a similar or even higher level. For instance an object capable of capturing select data fields similar to which the Apple Utility System Profile collects, could be constructed. Yes, you can. But why? Well designed software doesn't bother on which hardware it runs. It checks for few specific capabilities, at best. This is probably the reason why a comfortable, high level API to check current hardware doesn't have a high priority at Apple: They want to encourage good software design. This email sent to site_archiver@lists.apple.com