Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!bionet!ames!amdahl!pacbell!att!chinet!patrickd
From: patrickd@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Deupree)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: C_Talk review and final review if C
Message-ID: <9395@chinet.chi.il.us>
Date: 28 Aug 89 14:15:55 GMT
References: <5258@umd5.umd.edu> <237700003@ENR.Prime.COM> <5270@umd5.umd.edu>
Reply-To: patrickd@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Deupree)
Organization: The Whitewater Group, Evanston, IL
Lines: 21

In article <5270@umd5.umd.edu> jonnyg@umd5.umd.edu (Jon Greenblatt) writes:
>I have been dealing with interpreted environments
>for some time now (Actor/Lisp-OOPS) and its hard to get back into the
>restrictions compilers force on you.

I would like to clear up a misconception that this previous posting may have
caused.  Actor is half compiled, half interpreted code that runs much more
efficiently.  Basically, Actor itself is written in Assembly code.  When a
program is written in Actor (or shall I say a method) that method is compiled
into threaded code.  That threaded code is then run through the interpreter.

After having used man interpreted languages in my day (everything from Basic
to Prolog on a Unix system) I can safely say that Actor runs a damn sight
better than I thought it would when I started using it.  A lot of the "slowness"
involved is due to the GUI (in our case this is only Windows at the moment,
but the Mac windows and X-Windows would probably pose the same problems).
-- 
"I place my faith in fools.  Self confidence, my friends call it."
					-Edgar Allen Poe

Patrick Deupree -> patrickd@chinet.chi.il.us