|Why is compiled basic slower than C? (Basic is the future) Glenn_Johansson@f313.n203.z2.fidonet.cd.chalmers.s (1992-08-11)|
|Re: Why is compiled basic slower than C? (Basic is the future) firstname.lastname@example.org (1992-08-12)|
|Re: Why is compiled basic slower than C email@example.com (Diomidis Spinellis) (1992-08-12)|
|Re: Why is compiled basic slower than C? (Basic is the future) firstname.lastname@example.org (Hao-yang Wang) (1992-08-12)|
|Re: Why is compiled basic slower than C? (Basic is the future) email@example.com (1992-08-12)|
|Re: Why is compiled basic slower than C? (Basic is the future) firstname.lastname@example.org (1992-08-12)|
|Re: Why is compiled basic slower than C? (Basic is the future) email@example.com (1992-08-13)|
|[12 later articles]|
|Organization:||Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden|
|Date:||Tue, 11 Aug 1992 12:34:56 GMT|
|Summary:||With better compilers, everybody would use basic.|
|Keywords:||Basic, C, performance|
I think it would be interesting to hear thoughts from people acquainted
with program compilation of why compiled basic becomes slower than, for
example, compiled C. And how big is actually the difference in speed
between a compiled basic and compiled C program, if both programs are
1. How much slower is compiled modern basic than compiled modern C?
2. Why is the basic compilers creating a slower product than the C
a. Because of the beginner-reputation of basic,
basic programmers write more bad code than for example C programmers,
because "serious" programmers quickly change to C.
b. Because of the beginner-reputation of basic,
there is not a big demand for good and fast basic compilers.
c. Because it is much harder to write a compiler for basic (even modern
basic) than for C, which is designed for the purpose of being compiled,
not for the programmers.
d. Because, for some unknown reason, it is simply impossible to make a
compiled basic program as fast as a C program.
e. Other (?)
The reason for my interest in the reason of the slowness of basic is that
basic is the best program language that there is today, from the
programmers point of view. But I simply cant see the reason for the
slowness of compiled basic!
The perfect programming language would look a lot more like basic than
any other programming language there is today. None of the advantages with
C has anything to do with the "look" of C (=what makes C C) - all these
advantages can be incorporated in Basic, without Basic becoming less
So why is not Basic the biggest programming language today? Well, my
theory is this: When C was invented, it was made to be simple to write a
compiler for, because the compiler constructors were not that good then.
Perhas it also had something to do with it that Basic simply looked too
logical and siple - no flashing LEDs, no ununderstandable HEX figures, no
brackets, semicolon etc to make the source look more advanced and
impressing to the layman...
If someone wrote a Basic that were as fast and supported as other
programming laguages today, I think it is realistic to believe that Basic
would be bigger than C 10 years after that! The problem is to talk the
financers (the non-programmers) into starting a Basiclanguage developement
project. In the eyes of those who dont know programming from the ground,
Basic is a language for beginners which is long dead.
[Please direct explanations of why Basic isn't the perfect language to him,
but discussions of why Basic compilers perform poorly are welcome in
comp.compilers. By the way, the guys who wrote Basic in the first place
definitely wanted it to be easy to compile -- the first compiler at Dartmouth
compiled so fast it was hard to measure its speed. -John]
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.