|[3 earlier articles]|
|Re: Comparisons and Benchmarking firstname.lastname@example.org (2009-10-19)|
|Re: Comparisons and Benchmarking email@example.com (Paul Biggar) (2009-10-20)|
|Re: Comparisons and Benchmarking firstname.lastname@example.org (Isaac Gouy) (2009-10-20)|
|Re: Comparisons and Benchmarking email@example.com (Tom Crick) (2009-10-20)|
|Re: Comparisons and Benchmarking firstname.lastname@example.org (Philip Herron) (2009-10-21)|
|Re: Comparisons and Benchmarking email@example.com (2009-10-21)|
|Re: Comparisons and Benchmarking firstname.lastname@example.org (George Neuner) (2009-10-21)|
|Re: Comparisons and Benchmarking email@example.com (Ray) (2009-11-04)|
|Re: Comparisons and Benchmarking firstname.lastname@example.org (bartc) (2009-11-05)|
|From:||George Neuner <email@example.com>|
|Date:||Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:44:00 -0400|
|Organization:||A noiseless patient Spider|
|References:||09-10-016 09-10-021 09-10-024|
|Posted-Date:||22 Oct 2009 16:47:35 EDT|
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:30:08 +0100, Paul Biggar
>On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:12 AM, Hans-Peter Diettrich
>> IMO algorithms are so language independent, that they may boil down to
>> the very same machine code, regardless of the used language and compiler.
>This is only true if you take a very narrow view of language
>implementations. Of the "most popular" languages today, lets suppose
Indeed. The same algorithm will look very different compiled in C
than when compiled in a language that has, e.g., arbitrary precision
arithmetic, string ropes, immutable data, etc.
Heck, in most languages the algorithm will compile very differently
when implemented (equivalently) using recursion vs iteration. I've
only ever seen a Lisp compiler reduce an iterative loop and a self
recursion to the same (iterative) machine code - and then only for
very simple loops.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.