fix: fix nim vs crystal thumbnail image
This commit is contained in:
parent
38a48be9b7
commit
b2369907ae
|
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ author: robin_percy
|
|||
categories:
|
||||
- tutorials
|
||||
layout: blog-post
|
||||
image: '/assets/images/nim-crystal-header_blank.jpg'
|
||||
image: '/assets/images/nim-crystal-header-img_NEW.jpg'
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
![crystal vs nim](/assets/images/nim-crystal-header-img_NEW.jpg)
|
||||
|
@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ Anyway, let's take a look at both languages, and you can make your own mind up a
|
|||
|
||||
## Nim
|
||||
|
||||
Nim is a statically-typed, imperative, systems programming language; aiming to achieve the performance of C, be as expressive as Lisp, and have a simple, clear syntax like Python. I have to say, from my experience Nim manages to ***pretty much*** fit these criterion.
|
||||
Nim is a statically-typed, imperative, systems programming language; aiming to achieve the performance of C, be as expressive as Lisp, and have a simple, clear syntax like Python. I have to say, from my experience Nim manages to ***pretty much*** fit these criterion.
|
||||
|
||||
> By compiling to C, Nim is able to take advantage of many features offered by modern C compilers. The primary benefits gained by this compilation model include incredible portability and optimisations.
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -462,7 +462,7 @@ Once again, to my surprise, Crystal came out on top. And did again and again for
|
|||
|
||||
## Conclusion
|
||||
|
||||
The summary of this first-in-series article, is most definitely one of surprise. I already knew that Crystal was a highly-performant language, and I have previously done my own research & testing to see how close to *C speeds* it could achieve. That being said, I was *also* already aware that Nim **claims** close to C speeds, and that one of the language's principals was to run well on old & less-performant hardware.
|
||||
The summary of this first-in-series article, is most definitely one of surprise. I already knew that Crystal was a highly-performant language, and I have previously done my own research & testing to see how close to *C speeds* it could achieve. That being said, I was *also* already aware that Nim **claims** close to C speeds, and that one of the language's principals was to run well on old & less-performant hardware.
|
||||
|
||||
Yet, Crystal beat not only my own expectations; but beat Nim for both memory usage **AND** execution times. I really didn't expect to see Crystal come out *this* far ahead in performance. On the other hand, Nim came out by-far the leader when it comes to language interoperability. **Nim makes it even easier** than Crystal when interfacing other langs – not something I thought possible, given just how easy Crystal makes the task.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ author: robin_percy
|
|||
categories:
|
||||
- tutorials
|
||||
layout: blog-post
|
||||
image: '/assets/images/nim-crystal-header_blank.jpg'
|
||||
image: '/assets/images/nim-crystal-header-img_NEW.jpg'
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
![crystal vs nim](/assets/images/nim-crystal-header-img_NEW.jpg)
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ author: robin_percy
|
|||
categories:
|
||||
- tutorials
|
||||
layout: blog-post
|
||||
image: '/assets/images/nim-crystal-header_blank.jpg'
|
||||
image: '/assets/images/nim-crystal-header-img_NEW.jpg'
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
![crystal vs nim](/assets/images/nim-crystal-header-img_NEW.jpg)
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue