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=1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_DATE, MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdaisy.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond From: ndiamond@watdaisy.UUCP (Norman Diamond) Newsgroups: net.ai,net.lang.lisp,net.lang.ada Subject: Re: Speed with numbers: PDP-10 Maclisp vs. Fortran (details) Message-ID: <7087@watdaisy.UUCP> Date: Mon, 18-Mar-85 22:40:02 EST Article-I.D.: watdaisy.7087 Posted: Mon Mar 18 22:40:02 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 19-Mar-85 06:14:26 EST References: <242@bu-cs.UUCP>, <316@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> <253@bu-cs.UUCP> Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Xref: watmath net.ai:2634 net.lang.lisp:398 net.lang.ada:238 List-Id: > If I want to build a system, I don't want to have to switch > languages in mid-development. Niggling little details about > representation switching start using up all my hacking time, which I > would rather devote to the application level. That's exactly why you do some planning in very early development (I will need this routine in that language, so I will code it last and add an assembly-language interface, or I will code it first and maybe / maybe not need an assembly-language interface); and why you switch languages only at the very end of development (when you are actually coding). When I code a call to a subroutine, I do not suspend this routine and immediately code the subroutine. The subroutine is already written or will be written later. Language switching is even less frequent than routine switching. -- Norman Diamond UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra}!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond CSNET: ndiamond%watdaisy@waterloo.csnet ARPA: ndiamond%watdaisy%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa "Opinions are those of the keyboard, and do not reflect on me or higher-ups."