home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu.tar
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu
/
icon
/
newsgrp
/
group98a.txt
/
000061_icon-group-sender _Wed Feb 25 17:08:01 1998.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
2000-09-20
|
2KB
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 RAA05417
for <icon-group-addresses@baskerville.CS.Arizona.EDU>; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 17:08:01 -0700 (MST)
Received: by kingfisher.CS.Arizona.EDU (5.65v4.0/1.1.8.2/08Nov94-0446PM)
id AA31061; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 17:08:00 -0700
From: gep2@computek.net
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 13:30:10 -0600
Message-Id: <199802251930.NAA16169@axp.cmpu.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Translation into C
To: icon-group@optima.CS.Arizona.EDU
X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17
Errors-To: icon-group-errors@optima.CS.Arizona.EDU
Status: RO
Content-Length: 836
> 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.
Right.
> Does anyone have statistics that might answer this question?
I think that statistics for different implementations will vary all over the
place... I'd comment though that generally the overhead of an interpreter is
less (and the advantages are more) for higher-level languages than for
lower-level ones, for exactly the reason you yourself suggested above.
Gordon Peterson
http://www.computek.net/public/gep2/
Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/