Re: Separating algorithms from implementations (long)

  >Toby Sharp <TSharp@Serif.com> wrote:
  >> We might be able to solve this problem if there were some way to
  >> describe algorithms apart from their implementations.


Dara Gallagher <dara_gallagher@my-deja.com> writes:
  >I think functional and logical languages come closest in this
  >regard. Unfortunately there are some disadvantages; space and time
  >complexity is very difficult to calculate for functional programs.
  >(This crops up on comp.lang.functional frequently.)


That's only true for _lazy_ functional programs.


  >However, there was a FPL (now defunct as far as I know) called
  >Sisal which apparently could challange and often outperform hand
  >crafted Fortran for various types of multiple processor and vector
  >architectures.


Note that Sisal was not lazy.
--
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au> | "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3 | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.