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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public From: lga@sma.ch (Laurent Gasser) Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1997/01/15 Message-ID: <5bifbqINNgh3@maz4.sma.ch>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 209949719 distribution: world references: organization: Swiss Meteorological Institute reply-to: lga@sma.ch newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object,comp.software-eng Date: 1997-01-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > Jay said > > "Here is an even more ignorant question: Why is compilation time still > a driving factor? (excluding hardcore optimizations) Obviously it > still is as I watched large systems compile lately. But wait, wasn't > Turbo Pascal long ago seemly compile stuff faster on a 4.77MHz PC > faster than VC++ on my P5-100. For fun I compiled old programs with > vintage a Turbo Pascal Compiler and it seems to compile these suckers > instantanously!" > > Yes, but the quality of code turned out by your "vintage Turbo pascal > compiler" is truly horrible. [ sound arguments about global optimization and inlining deleted ] I am no more sure about the fact for Turbo Pascal. But it may had used the same strategy than Think Pascal on Mac (once a Lightspeed product, still sold by Symantech today, a record sale life span). The compilation was extra speedy because the syntax tree building was embodied in the editor. While you typed down the source, the syntax was checked and the front part of the compilation (decorated syntax tree) was done. So, when you finally decided to see it running, it only had to generate the object code and link. The strategy seemd to be one cause of the abandon of Think Pascal (it still only generates 68K, and never did the PowerPC leap). Today, compiler favor a much clearer separation with text editors. -- Laurent Gasser (lga@sma.ch) Computers do not solve problems, they execute solutions.