Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!midway!quads.uchicago.edu!goer
From: goer@quads.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.icon
Subject: Re: UUXXCODE
Message-ID: <1990Sep20.001828.10951@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: 20 Sep 90 00:18:28 GMT
References: <9009192222.AA24483@gacham.cs.arizona.edu>
Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator)
Distribution: inet
Organization: University of Chicago
Lines: 30

Kwalker@CS.ARIZONA.EDU ("Kenneth Walker") writes:
>
> uuencode:
>     compiled is 4.0 - 5.8 times faster than interpreted
>     system version is 21 - 40 times faster than compiled
>
> uudecode
>      compiled is 2.4 - 2.9 times faster than interpreted
>      system version is 22 - 36 times faster than compiled
>
>While the time command is clearly not a very accurate measure of program
>speed (I used the same data on all 3 runs), it does give a feeling
>for how much the compiler improves speed and how much work is left to
>do to get programs like these to run as fast as those coded in C.

For short programs like this, it would probably be better to use C.
The real advantage of using Icon is in how it speeds up development
time, and aids program maintenance by simply cutting down on the amount
and complexity of the code.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that getting a two to five-fold
speed increase looks pretty good to people like me who can only think
with horror about what some of our programs would look like - or how
hard it would be to write/maintain them - if they had to be done in
C.

Don't be too deferential about the gap between compiled Icon and C.
What you and Janalee have done is terriffic.

-Richard