Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!pacbell.com!pacbell!att!mcdchg!ddsw1!igloo!nevin
From: nevin@igloo.scum.com (Nevin Liber)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Herman knows. (Re: What is the language for ?)  [REPOST]
Keywords: Herman Rubin
Message-ID: <2718@igloo.scum.com>
Date: 9 Aug 90 00:56:28 GMT
References: <1990Jul25.174153.16896@ecn.purdue.edu> <11029@chaph.usc.edu> <5374@castle.ed.ac.uk> <2416@l.cc.purdue.edu>
Reply-To: nevin@igloo.UUCP (Nevin Liber)
Organization: Igloo public access unix, Northbrook IL
Lines: 51

[sorry for the repost, but I don't think that this made it out last time]

In article <2416@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:

>It should be such as to enable the programmer to express his problem
>in a manner that is compatible with the structure of his problem and
>the capabilities of the machine.

Wow, we actually agree on something. :-)

>It should also be such that the
>resulting program is reasonably efficient.

True, but REASONABLY EFFICIENT is not the same thing as OPTIMAL.  You
seem to always want the most efficient "run time" solution, while the
rest of us want to figure in our development time and the compile time
as well.  We are trying to make the whole computing SYSTEM more
efficient, instead of just focusing all our energy on just one part of
that system (in your case, the run time execution speed).


You seem to ignore making the programmers work reasonably
efficient.  If it takes you half an hour to rewrite, compile, and test
a routine so that it saves one millisecond, that routine had better be
used at least 1.8 MILLION times just to break even!

I'll even suppose that the cost of your coding time is negligible
compared to the cost of computer time.  How much CPU time do you spend
in an editor?  Or doing an extra compile or two because you feel it
necessary to hand-optimize?  If, for example, this averages to 15 CPU
seconds per optimization, you had better be shaving at least that much
off of the final CPU run time.  Otherwise, your SYSTEM (you + computer)
is not being reasonably efficient.

>Now I do not believe that a language which can accomplish all this
>can be produced which is completely portable.  But it is necessary
>to take these things into account in designing the language.  Making
>it extensible can enable local modifications to be made. 

This has many prices to it.  Since you tend to ignore issues like code
maintenance and portability, I'll focus on some more direct costs.
Putting these features into the language increases the complexity of
the compiler, and hence the compiler uses more computing resources.
Are you really going to make your code that much more efficient, to
make up for a compiler that takes, say,  5-10 times longer (both CPU
time and real time) than, a C compiler?  This is very doubtful.
-- 
	NEVIN ":-)" LIBER
	nevin@igloo.scum.com  or  ..!gargoyle!igloo!nevin
	(708) 831-FLYS
Advertisement:  Hire me!