Re: Languages of multiple abstaction

"Gene" <gene.ressler@gmail.com>
1 Nov 2006 00:52:00 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Languages of multiple abstaction free4trample@yahoo.com (fermineutron) (2006-10-29)
Re: Languages of multiple abstaction Juergen.Kahrs@vr-web.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Kahrs?=) (2006-11-01)
Re: Languages of multiple abstaction gene.ressler@gmail.com (Gene) (2006-11-01)
Re: Languages of multiple abstaction gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2006-11-01)
Re: Languages of multiple abstaction esmond.pitt@bigpond.com (EJP) (2006-11-01)
Re: Languages of multiple abstaction DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2006-11-01)
Re: Languages of multiple abstaction torbenm@app-0.diku.dk (2006-11-01)
Re: Languages of multiple abstaction bmoses-nospam@cits1.stanford.edu (Brooks Moses) (2006-11-01)
Re: Languages of multiple abstaction walter@bytecraft.com (Walter Banks) (2006-11-01)
[5 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

From: "Gene" <gene.ressler@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 1 Nov 2006 00:52:00 -0500
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 06-10-126
Keywords: design, performance

fermineutron wrote:
> It is generally the belief that high level languages are slower than
> the low level languages. It seems to me that there are 2 possible
> reasons for it. ...


> I am curious about the fraction of the speed penalty of HLL which in
> no way can be reduced by more inteligent programing or certain
> compiler swiches


Their methodology is fraught with peril, but some of the on-line
pseudo-competitions are very interesting to look at:


http://shootout.alioth.debian.org


Note e.g. that OCAML is doing well even compared to C/C++ (gcc). In
all, it looks like the penalty for high-levelness has been pretty much
subsumed by the penalty of not being a huge industrial standard or open
source project---so that immense resources can be directed at compiler
refinements (e.g. C/C++ and gcc) and language tweaks (e.g. Java).



Post a followup to this message

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