From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	RATWARE_MS_HASH,RATWARE_OUTLOOK_NONAME autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,baaf5f793d03d420
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: fc89c,97188312486d4578
X-Google-Attributes: gidfc89c,public
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,6154de2e240de72a
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,97188312486d4578
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Tim Behrendsen" <tim@airshields.com>
Subject: Re: What's the best language to start with? [was: Re: Should I learn
 C or Pascal?]
Date: 1996/08/14
Message-ID: <01bb89f9$405820c0$87ee6fce@timpent.airshields.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 174148973
references: <31FBC584.4188@ivic.qc.ca> <01bb8342$88cc6f40$32ee6fcf@timhome2>
 <4u7grn$eb0@news1.mnsinc.com>
 <01bb83ad$29c3cfa0$87ee6fce@timpent.airshields.com>
 <4u89c4$p7p@solutions.solon.com>
 <01bb83f5$923391e0$87ee6fce@timpent.airshields.com>
 <danpop.839450672@news.cern.ch>
 <01bb8534$b2718bc0$87ee6fce@timpent.airshields.com>
 <danpop.839594575@news.cern.ch>
 <01bb87cf$97ae8e80$87ee6fce@timpent.airshields.com>
 <danpop.839807980@news.cern.ch> <01bb88d4$022bf4a0$32ee6fce@timhome2>
 <danpop.840019072@news.cern.ch>
content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
organization: A-SIS
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.unix.programmer,comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-08-14T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Dan Pop <Dan.Pop@cern.ch> wrote in article
<danpop.840019072@news.cern.ch>...
> >
> >It's probably mostly the paging locality.
> 
> Both versions have excellent paging locality.  Read them again and tell
> me which one is likely to produce more page faults than the other.

By paging locality, I mean that virtual-to-physical address
translation happens faster when you are dealing with one
page at a time rather than "striping" in the second case.

> >I think that most architectures in the real world are close
> >enough that you can find commonality, such as inefficient
> >recursion.
> 
> There are plenty of algorithms where recursion is the most efficient
> implementation.  Just ask any Fortran programmer who had to implement
> such an algorithm without using recursion.

For example?

-- Tim Behrendsen (tim@airshields.com)