Re: Why is compiled basic slower than C? (Basic is the future)

imp@Solbourne.COM (Warner Losh)
Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:17:16 GMT

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[6 earlier articles]
Re: Why is compiled basic slower than C? (Basic is the future) macrakis@osf.org (1992-08-14)
Re: Why is compiled basic slower than C? (Basic is the future) burley@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (1992-08-14)
Re: Why is compiled basic slower than C? (Basic is the future) dbenn@leven.appcomp.utas.edu.au (1992-08-15)
Re: Why is compiled basic slower than C? (Basic is the future) pardo@cs.washington.edu (1992-08-15)
Re: Why is compiled basic slower than C? (Basic is the future) macrakis@osf.org (1992-08-17)
Re: Why is compiled basic slower than C? (Basic is the future) fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (1992-08-18)
Re: Why is compiled basic slower than C? (Basic is the future) imp@Solbourne.COM (1992-08-18)
Re: Why is compiled basic slower than C? (Basic is the future) burley@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (1992-08-18)
Re: Why is compiled basic slower than C? (Basic is the future) pdg@crosfield.co.uk (1992-08-19)
Re: Why is compiled basic slower than C? (Basic is the future) pk@cs.tut.fi (1992-08-21)
Re: Why is compiled basic slower than C? (Basic is the future) robert@metropolis.com (1992-08-25)
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: imp@Solbourne.COM (Warner Losh)
Organization: Solbourne, User Interface Group
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:17:16 GMT
References: 92-08-042 92-08-095
Keywords: interpreter, performance

burley@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Craig Burley) writes:
>[re whether it's worth compiling TECO]


I used a TECO variant on the DECSYSTEM-20 that we had at school. The
manual claimed to compile the code on the fly before it executed it. The
claimed speedup was on the order of a factor of 5 due to some optimization
tricks. It was called something like NTECO, or something like that.


Warner
--
Warner Losh imp@Solbourne.COM
--


Post a followup to this message

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