|Re: Intrinsicaly fast/slow languages (WAS: Unsafe Optimizations) holub@violet.Berkeley.EDU (1990-06-20)|
|Re: Intrinsicaly fast/slow languages (WAS: Unsafe Optimizations) firstname.lastname@example.org (1990-06-21)|
|References:||<1990Jun12.email@example.com> <1990Jun14.firstname.lastname@example.org> <1990Jun15.email@example.com> <1990Jun15.firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||Wed, 20 Jun 90 04:00:52 GMT|
|Organization:||University of California, Berkeley|
|Keywords:||compiler design, C, unsafe optimizations|
In article <1990Jun15.email@example.com>
firstname.lastname@example.org (David Keppel) writes:
> >All LISP programs are not compilable since some are self-modifying
> ...I can write an equivalent program in FORTRAN, and that the FORTRAN
> program can be compiled statically. The FORTRAN program will, of course,
> have all of the ``hidden'' LISP list operations...
I agree with most everything you say, but the original point was intrinsic
efficiency. You can always be the compiler yourself, and translate a LISP
program to FORTRAN by hand, but as you say, all the original overhead will
still be there---it's just more obvious. The real question is whether you'd
be better off writing a good FORTRAN program to begin with rather than
a bad LISP program. [Real programmers can write LISP in any language :-)].
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.