From: Jeff Carter <jrcarter010@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Language Challenge 2000
Date: 2000/02/01
Date: 2000-02-01T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <389707D9.2CF4A3FA@earthlink.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 876rjf$h1r$1@nnrp1.deja.com
Jim Rogers wrote:
>
> In article <38964D82.3423805@sdynamix.com>,
> bvoh@sdynamix.com wrote:
> > Language Challenge 2000
> >
> > Criteria:
> >
> > a) Execution time
> > b) Size of executable
> >
>
> If this is your only criteria for language choice then you should
> always use assembler.
Let us not forget the case in which the Tartan Ada-83 compiler produced
smaller and faster code than the best assembler a team of experts could
produce after many months of hand optimization. This was presented in
Ada Letters, but I don't have the details about the issue available.
Thus, even such a benighted set of criteria does not always argue
against high-level languages when an excellent optimizer is available.
--
Jeff Carter
"We call your door-opening request a silly thing."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2000-02-01 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-01-31 0:00 Language Challenge 2000 bvoh
2000-02-01 0:00 ` Jim Rogers
2000-02-01 0:00 ` Jeff Carter [this message]
2000-02-01 0:00 ` David
2000-02-01 0:00 ` Jim Rogers
2000-02-04 0:00 ` Gautier
2000-02-04 0:00 ` Ted Dennison
2000-02-04 0:00 ` Vincent DIEMUNSCH
2000-02-04 0:00 ` Vincent DIEMUNSCH
2000-02-04 0:00 ` Gautier
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox