Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!dptg!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bfmny0!tneff From: tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: C vs. FORTRAN Message-ID: <14523@bfmny0.UUCP> Date: 7 Aug 89 16:31:54 GMT References: <3288@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu> <225800204@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) Organization: ^ Lines: 36 In article <225800204@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >>The odds are pretty good that somebody asking about relative code >>efficiency is worrying about the wrong issues in choosing a >>programming language. > >I don't understand this statement! Somebody serious about relative >code efficiency (and mentioning Fortran) probably has a big program. >They may be worried that it would cost $20000 of cpu time in >one language instead of $40000 in another. This isn't important? >OR they might be worried that one would take 300 microseconds to >process a piece of incoming data, and another language might take >600 microseconds, and the data is expected to arrive at 400 microsecond >intervals. Yes - they MIGHT. More likely, in my experience, they just like the *idea* of efficient code, whether or not they can demonstrate just what DEGREE of efficiency their application requires. All you have to do is stand around the lunchroom when a bunch of applications hackers are standing around gossiping about processors and compilers. Oh, THAT's got more mips than THIS one! Oooh, I don't like THAT compiler, it generates less efficient code! Say, duhh, which is better, the 88000 or 486? Huhhh? The fact is that every extra hour the applications wonk spends trying to get the #*$&@# compiler or linker or OS loader to work, or on the phone to some consultant, is worth billions of instructions on any processor of his choice. Software that works right, and early, is more important that a shaved MIP. However this does not make for sufficiently macho lunchroom conversation! -- "We walked on the moon -- (( Tom Neff you be polite" )) tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET