Re: Intrinsicaly fast/slow languages (WAS: Unsafe Optimizations)

pardo@june.cs.washington.edu (David Keppel)
Thu, 21 Jun 90 18:42:06 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Re: Intrinsicaly fast/slow languages (WAS: Unsafe Optimizations) holub@violet.Berkeley.EDU (1990-06-20)
Re: Intrinsicaly fast/slow languages (WAS: Unsafe Optimizations) pardo@june.cs.washington.edu (1990-06-21)
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: pardo@june.cs.washington.edu (David Keppel)
References: <1990Jun12.163959.2593@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us> <1990Jun14.152612.2374@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us> <1990Jun15.033356.2061@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us> <1990Jun15.172211.3257@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 90 18:42:06 GMT
Organization: U of Washington, Computer Science, Seattle
Keywords: compiler design, language design, static, dynamic

Allen Holub writes:
>[The question is: should you write FORTRAN or LISP?]
>Real programmers can write LISP in any language :-)


So we have the following:


* You can write LISP in any language
* You can write FORTRAN in any language
* SOME lisps run like FOTRAN if you write FORTRAN
* fortran runs like LISP if you write LISP.


I admit it's stretching the analogy, but the point is that a language
with sophisticated structures might LOOK inefficient, but isn't
necessarily so. Even things like LISP can, if you write FORTRAN, be
compiled to efficient code.


Reducto ad perfect optimizer: no intrinsically inefficient languages.
Reducto ad current optimizers: yes intrinsically inefficient languages.
Reducto ad carefully-designed languages with good optimizers:
sophisticated features, and if you write ``static code'' programs you
get ``static code'' performance.


;-D on ( Reducto ad absurdum: me ) Pardo
--
pardo@cs.washington.edu
        {rutgers,cornell,ucsd,ubc-cs,tektronix}!uw-beaver!june!pardo
--

Post a followup to this message

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