home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu.tar
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu
/
icon
/
newsgrp
/
group02b.txt
/
000154_icon-group-sender_Mon Dec 9 08:30:32 2002.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
2003-01-02
|
2KB
Return-Path: <icon-group-sender>
Received: (from root@localhost)
by baskerville.CS.Arizona.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) id gB9FT8E23905
for icon-group-addresses; Mon, 9 Dec 2002 08:29:08 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <200212091529.gB9FT8E23905@baskerville.CS.Arizona.EDU>
From: "Ladv�nszky K�roly" <aa@bb.cc>
X-Newsgroups: comp.lang.icon
Subject: Re: Icon compiler
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 09:30:40 +0100
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
To: icon-group@cs.arizona.edu
Errors-To: icon-group-errors@cs.arizona.edu
Status: RO
Thanks for your answer.
> The Icon-to-C (iconc) compiler can produce very fast programs. I recall
once
> using it on the Icon versions of uuencode / uudecode ("iiencode.icn" and
> "iidecode.icn" in the IPL) and ran some timing checks. The iconc versions
of
> iiencode / iidecode were over 3 times as fast as the interpreted (icont /
> iconx) versions. More surprisingly, I found that the iconc programs were
> actually faster than native C uuencode / uudecode programs that I was
using
> at the time!
Well ... I have this Fibonacci test for benchmarks. With MS C ++ it takes 8
secs to calculate the result for 40 as input and for Icon it takes about 600
secs. Now with even 3 times speed improvement, it'd still be 200 secs for
Icon. Given that, I think it's very exaggerated to say Icon programs can be
faster than C. However slow compared to C, I do recognise Icon's power and
I'm considering adding it to my software toolchest.