computer language used to program Mars Lander

[Richard Tobin]

Oooh... This is a misconception that comes from the time of
non-optimizing compilers for PC's - around 20 years ago. At that time a
i++ was faster than a i:= i + 1, sure.

I'd have been very disappointed with a compiler that did that 20 years ago.

Never heard of GCC ?...

Why yes, we were using it 20 years ago!

-- Richard

 

[Georg Bauhaus]

Do you have any data to prove that ADA is faster than C?
Or that has a smaller memory footprint?

Oh, not that again. ;-) I'm sure that Jacob, being a compiler writer,
is perfectly aware of how and when some +1 on a variable in either
language can and will be mapped to the same instruction(s). Etc.

Earlier, Keith Thompson said the wonderful words,
"This was cross-posted to comp.lang.ada and comp.lang.c. I suggest we
all refuse to take the bait and *not* start a cross-language flame
war."

 

[Gary Scott]

Do you have any data to prove that ADA is faster than C?

There should in general be no difference other than that there may be
some constructs that are harder for the compiler writer to figure out
how to optimize in one language versus the other. Probably works both ways.

Or that has a smaller memory footprint?

--

Gary Scott
mailto:garylscott@sbcglobal dot net

Fortran Library: http://www.fortranlib.com

Support the Original G95 Project: http://www.g95.org
-OR-
Support the GNU GFortran Project: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/index.html

If you want to do the impossible, don't hire an expert because he knows
it can't be done.

-- Henry Ford

 

[Jean-Pierre Rosen]

Gautier a écrit :

Paul Hsieh:


Oooh... This is a misconception that comes from the time of
non-optimizing compilers for PC's - around 20 years ago. At that time a
i++ was faster than a i:= i + 1, sure. But it was long long time ago.
Never heard of GCC ?...

When I started working on a (Pascal) compiler, this optimization was the
first one I introduced in the compiler, because it was the easiest one
to do. And it was 30 years ago...

 

[Nick Keighley]

Gautier a écrit :

[this] comes from the time of
non-optimizing compilers for PC's - around 20 years ago. At that time a
i++ was faster than a i:= i + 1, sure. But it was long long time ago.
Never heard of GCC ?...

When I started working on a (Pascal) compiler, this optimization was the
first one I introduced in the compiler, because it was the easiest one
to do. And it was 30 years ago...

Pascal has a ++ operator?

 

[Richard]

Gautier a écrit :

[this] comes from the time of
non-optimizing compilers for PC's - around 20 years ago. At that time a
i++ was faster than a i:= i + 1, sure. But it was long long time ago.
Never heard of GCC ?...

When I started working on a (Pascal) compiler, this optimization was the
first one I introduced in the compiler, because it was the easiest one
to do. And it was 30 years ago...

Pascal has a ++ operator?

It was probably added as lesson 2 in an under graduate compiler course.

 

[Jean-Pierre Rosen]

Nick Keighley a écrit :

Gautier a écrit :

[this] comes from the time of
non-optimizing compilers for PC's - around 20 years ago. At that time a
i++ was faster than a i:= i + 1, sure. But it was long long time ago.
Never heard of GCC ?...

When I started working on a (Pascal) compiler, this optimization was the
first one I introduced in the compiler, because it was the easiest one
to do. And it was 30 years ago...

Pascal has a ++ operator?

No, I was refering to optimizing I := I+1 into a single "Inc" machine
instruction.

 

[Chris Dollin]

Gautier a écrit :

[this] comes from the time of
non-optimizing compilers for PC's - around 20 years ago. At that time a
i++ was faster than a i:= i + 1, sure. But it was long long time ago.
Never heard of GCC ?...

When I started working on a (Pascal) compiler, this optimization was the
first one I introduced in the compiler, because it was the easiest one
to do. And it was 30 years ago...

Pascal has a ++ operator?

No, but it has an opportunity to optimise `i := i + 1;` to the same code
as a C compiler might have compiled `i++` into.

--
'It changed the future .. and it changed us.' /Babylon 5/

Hewlett-Packard Limited registered office: Cain Road,
Bracknell,
registered no: 690597 England Berks RG12
1HN

 

[Walter Banks]

Pascal has a ++ operator?

inc(x);

w..

 

[CBFalconer]

Nick Keighley a écrit :

Gautier a écrit :

[this] comes from the time of non-optimizing compilers for PC's
- around 20 years ago. At that time a i++ was faster than a
i:= i + 1, sure. But it was long long time ago.

Never heard of GCC ?...

When I started working on a (Pascal) compiler, this optimization
was the first one I introduced in the compiler, because it was
the easiest one to do. And it was 30 years ago...

Pascal has a ++ operator?

No, I was refering to optimizing I := I+1 into a single "Inc"
machine instruction.

ISO Standard Pascal has no 'inc' instruction. Some non-standard
abortions do. However those abortions also omit critical portions
of the standard, such as f^ and the put and get functions. There
is more.

 

[Jean-Pierre Rosen]

CBFalconer a écrit :

ISO Standard Pascal has no 'inc' instruction. Some non-standard
abortions do. However those abortions also omit critical portions
of the standard, such as f^ and the put and get functions. There
is more.

Please read again, I was refering to the Inc /machine instruction/ that
we had for our target at that time (an IRIS-80, a french machine derived
from XDS-Sigma7).

 

[CBFalconer]

CBFalconer a écrit :


Please read again, I was refering to the Inc /machine instruction/
that we had for our target at that time (an IRIS-80, a french
machine derived from XDS-Sigma7).

Fair enough. No further discussion needed, since it was OT in the
first place, and only caused by my righteous irritation at the
destruction of Pascal by bad approximations.

 

[Antoninus Twink]

ISO Standard Pascal has no 'inc' instruction. Some non-standard
abortions do. However those abortions also omit critical portions
of the standard, such as f^ and the put and get functions. There
is more.

By the "standards" you insist on holding the rest of the world to,
you're way "off-topic". Try comp.lang.pascal or
alt.bullshit.cbf-dribblings.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

By the "standards" you insist on holding the rest of the world to,
you're way "off-topic". Try comp.lang.pascal or
alt.bullshit.cbf-dribblings.

My newsserver doesn't carry the later group. I assume you newgroup'd it
recently?

 

[santosh]

My newsserver doesn't carry the later group. I assume you newgroup'd
it recently?

s/later/latter