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: 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: matt@physics10.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) Subject: Re: Language Efficiency Date: 1995/04/20 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 101281695 references: <3lmt64$stt@dplanet.p2k.cbis.com> <3lrrqk$kbj@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group) reply-to: matt@physics.berkeley.edu newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.cobol Date: 1995-04-20T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > Yes indeed (see the whole program at once, and you have to write two > compilers). To argue that language features make it easier or more > difficult to achieve X is one thing, to argue that these differences > are fundamental is another. I think everybody agress about what's going on, we're just choosing to emphasize different things. If certain optimizations are possible in principle in two different languages, but if they are vastly more difficult in one language than in the other, then it is both correct and misleading to say that efficiency differences between the two languages are purely issues of implementation. "Possible in principle" and "possible" are two different concepts. -- Matt Austern matt@physics.berkeley.edu http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt