home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu.tar
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu
/
icon
/
newsgrp
/
group98a.txt
/
000059_icon-group-sender _Wed Feb 25 12:23:28 1998.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
2000-09-20
|
1KB
Return-Path: <icon-group-sender>
Received: from kingfisher.CS.Arizona.EDU (kingfisher.CS.Arizona.EDU [192.12.69.239])
by baskerville.CS.Arizona.EDU (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA05267
for <icon-group-addresses@baskerville.CS.Arizona.EDU>; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 12:23:28 -0700 (MST)
Received: by kingfisher.CS.Arizona.EDU (5.65v4.0/1.1.8.2/08Nov94-0446PM)
id AA29932; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 12:23:27 -0700
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 98 12:00:29 -0500
Message-Id: <9802251700.AB0060@valinet.com>
From: Paul Abrahams <abrahams@acm.org>
To: icon-group@optima.CS.Arizona.EDU
Cc: abrahams@acm.org (Paul Abrahams)
Subject: Translation into C
Reply-To: abrahams@acm.org
Errors-To: icon-group-errors@optima.CS.Arizona.EDU
Status: RO
Content-Length: 438
Mark Evans suggested that the reason one might want an Icon to C
translator is that the resulting program will execute faster because it
doesn't need to be interpreted. But I wonder how much difference that
would really make. If the C program spends most of its time calling
library routines, then I wouldn't expect much difference at all.
Does anyone have statistics that might answer this question?
Paul Abrahams
abrahams@acm.org