home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ ftp.cs.arizona.edu / ftp.cs.arizona.edu.tar / ftp.cs.arizona.edu / icon / newsgrp / group98a.txt / 000081_icon-group-sender _Mon Mar 2 16:43:02 1998.msg < prev    next >
Internet Message Format  |  2000-09-20  |  2KB
  1. Return-Path: <icon-group-sender>
  2. Received: from kingfisher.CS.Arizona.EDU (kingfisher.CS.Arizona.EDU [192.12.69.239])
  3.     by baskerville.CS.Arizona.EDU (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA01575
  4.     for <icon-group-addresses@baskerville.CS.Arizona.EDU>; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 16:43:02 -0700 (MST)
  5. Received: by kingfisher.CS.Arizona.EDU (5.65v4.0/1.1.8.2/08Nov94-0446PM)
  6.     id AA03702; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 16:43:01 -0700
  7. Message-Id: <34FB1127.2E88@gte.net>
  8. Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 14:05:59 -0600
  9. From: Mark Evans <evans@gte.net>
  10. Reply-To: evans@gte.net
  11. Organization: None
  12. X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
  13. Mime-Version: 1.0
  14. To: icon-group@optima.CS.Arizona.EDU
  15. Subject: Re: Translation into C
  16. References: <199803021735.JAA19946@varda.premenos.com>
  17. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
  18. Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
  19. Errors-To: icon-group-errors@optima.CS.Arizona.EDU
  20. Status: RO
  21. Content-Length: 841
  22.  
  23. Ken Walker wrote:
  24. >
  25. > The C programs produced by the current Icon compiler run considerably
  26. > faster than interpreted program but appear to have a ways to go to match
  27. > hand-coded C. If someone has time, it would be interesting to compare
  28. > compiled Icon programs to hand-coded C [unfortunately, I've never
  29. > found the time...].
  30. > 
  31. > Ken Walker, kwalker@sfo.harbinger.com
  32. > Harbinger Coporation, Concord, Ca. 94520
  33.  
  34.  
  35. Nothing but hand-coded assembly can match hand-coded C!  I'm not asking
  36. for the moon!  The point is expressed in your comments by the phrase
  37. "considerably faster."  That's enough argument for an Icon->C converter.
  38.  
  39. I like your four-tier overview of interpretation, but there should be an
  40. enormous quantum gap between (3) and (4) by virtue of moving to
  41. dedicated transistors.
  42.  
  43. Thanks to everyone for a lively debate.
  44.  
  45. Mark
  46.  
  47.