Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!mintaka!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!icdoc!qmw-cs!eliot
From: eliot@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Eliot Miranda)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Performance of Smalltalk vs C (or C++)
Message-ID: <3282@sequent.cs.qmw.ac.uk>
Date: 28 Jan 91 11:15:53 GMT
References: <1991Jan4.004138.7013@ashtate> <22574@well.sf.ca.us> <2961.279ffcba@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.
Lines: 22

In article <2961.279ffcba@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> klimas@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes:
>In article <22574@well.sf.ca.us>, jjacobs@well.sf.ca.us (Jeffrey Jacobs) writes:
>> Performance is generally on the slow side.  This really isn't a compiler
>
>	If performance in modern Smalltalk's is a problem then it
>	will be a problem in C also.  We have seen Smalltalk programs
>	actually run faster than the C programs they were replacing.

Can you post more details?
	kind of program
	simple metrics (k lines, k bytes of code)
	% speed increase?

I also remember vaguely hearing from ParcPlace about Smalltalk to C++
rewrites that didn't produce the expected speedups. Can anyone comment
on this too?
-- 
Eliot Miranda			email:	eliot@cs.qmw.ac.uk
Dept of Computer Science	Tel:	071 975 5229 (+44 71 975 5229)
Queen Mary Westfield College	ARPA:	eliot%cs.qmw.ac.uk@nsf.ac.uk	
Mile End Road			UUCP:	eliot@qmw-cs.uucp
LONDON E1 4NS