|Code quality firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-01-06)|
|Re: Code quality email@example.com (1993-01-06)|
|Re: Code quality firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-01-06)|
|Re: Code quality email@example.com (1993-01-06)|
|Re: Code quality firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-01-07)|
|Re: Code quality email@example.com (1993-01-07)|
|Re: Code quality firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-01-07)|
|Re: Code quality email@example.com (1993-01-07)|
|Re: Code quality firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-01-07)|
|Re: Code quality grover@brahmand.Eng.Sun.COM (1993-01-07)|
|[5 later articles]|
|From:||email@example.com (Henry Spencer)|
|Organization:||U of Toronto Zoology|
|Date:||Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:45:43 GMT|
firstname.lastname@example.org (Dale R. Worley) writes:
>Is there much of a market for another 10% in speed of generated code?
To (approximately) quote John Mashey: "there are people who will commit
unspeakable acts for another ten percent". There is no shortage of
applications which are hard up against processor speed limits, where a
modest improvement in code quality can save a lot of people a lot of pain
trying to squeeze out a bit more performance. "Just switch to a faster
processor" doesn't work when you've got a large installed base to worry
about, or you're already using the fastest available, or the CPU box is
A lot of customers don't care about 10%. Some do. Some care a lot.
Whether there are enough of them to support extensive compiler work
depends on details of the market you're selling to.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology, email@example.com utzoo!henry
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.