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=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,97482af7429a6a62 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,97482af7429a6a62 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 10d15b,97482af7429a6a62 X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public From: mrw@oasis.icl.co.uk (Mike Wilson) Subject: Re: Language Efficiency Date: 1995/04/05 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 100937655 sender: news@oasis.icl.co.uk references: <3lmt64$stt@dplanet.p2k.cbis.com> <3lsdnf$t6o@rational.rational.com> organization: ICL, Bracknell, UK newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.cobol Date: 1995-04-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: > 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). -------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Wilson mrw@oasis.icl.co.uk ICL Medical Portfolio, Kings House, Kings Road, Reading, RG1 3PX, UK