Re: Language Efficiency

[dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller)]

In article <D6K812.7w8@oasis.icl.co.uk>,
Mike Wilson <mrw@oasis.icl.co.uk> wrote:
>> If there were such papers, they would be suspect.  A _language_ is
>> merely a paper definition of syntax and semantics; you must compare
>> language translation _implementations_ (i.e. compilers).  And compiler
>> versions, coding styles, idioms, target platforms, etc.
>
>Yes, but I could generalise and say that some languages such as 'C'
>were designed with efficiency in mind. That's not to say a rotten
>compiler wouldn't produce huge, slow code. There _are_ very efficient
>COBOL compilers around. I've heard ICL's VME COBOL compiler produces
>very efficient code (but I don't have any first-hand knowledge of it).
>

C was designed to be quite efficient for machines in the late 70's.
I'd hardly say it has a lock on the "efficiency" bag anymore.  Then
again, I would never claim that _any_ language has a lead on
efficiency.  Some languages have constructs that can "assist"
efficient compiler implementations (array slicing comes to mind, and
it's not in C), but that doesn't mean the compiler _writer_ has to
choose an efficient implementation.

Bottom line: It's _not_ the language, but the language _can_ give
hints :-)

However, to end the argument once-and-for-all, I did a comparison of
Ada and C++.  I ran both sources on top of a Pentuim system.....

	All it did was make the source listings a little warmer :-)

-- 
      Frustrated with C, C++, Pascal, Fortran?  Ada95 _might_ be for you!
	  For all sorts of interesting Ada95 tidbits, run the command:
"finger dweller@starbase.neosoft.com | more" (or e-mail with "finger" as subj.)
		if u cn rd ths, u r gd enuf to chg to Ada   :-)