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=2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,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: 10a146,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: fa0ae,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gidfa0ae,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: bill@cafe.net (Kaz Kylheku) Subject: Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java. Date: 1998/01/05 Message-ID: <68rqav$n9g$1@brie.direct.ca>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 313106972 References: <199712121931.LAA25389@sirius.infonex.com> <68mfgo$883@topdog.cs.umbc.edu> <34AF183F.ABE61660@charmedquark.com> <34B10945.2844970E@its.cl> Reply-To: kaz@cafe.net Organization: Internet Direct Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.perl.misc,comp.lang.ada,comp.edu Date: 1998-01-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <34B10945.2844970E@its.cl>, Guillermo Schwarz wrote: > Smalltalk is by no means slower than C++. Maybe actual implementations are not fast >enough as C++ compilers. In any case, if you are doing ray tracing, none C compiler Oh so in your head there is an imaginary Smalltalk implementation that is faster. The real world simply hasn't caught up yet. >will do as well as a good assembly coder. Define ``do as well''. Does that include completing the project? Or porting it rapidly to a newer, faster, cheaper platform? Sure, the scenes in Titanic could _easily_ have been rendered on a network of Alpha/Linux boxes had the code been written in MIPS assembly language under IRIX, right? C makes it feasible to write high-performance programs that are maintainable and portable. Assembly language does not. If assembly language was conductive to portability and maintainability, I'd use it in an instant. >It is the nature of the problem: only mathmatics, for which the raw CPU is built in the first >place, no compiler can be smart enough to realize how to do operations in the faster order >(unless you need to do loophole optimization, for which a good loophole optimizer will >be the best and the compiler would be useless). What is loophole optimization? Finding the best way to do your taxes so you don't have to pay? Or perhaps you mean peephole optimization, something that is extremely common. Why can't a compiler's code generation back end incorporate this optimization? >-- >I use CAPS to emphasize, not to yell. >I take unpopular positions. You seem to take _unpopulated_ positions (if we don't count Scott Nudds, of course).