Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu From: greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: NeXT Press Release Message-ID: <47766@ut-emx.uucp> Date: 24 Apr 91 07:57:23 GMT References: <11145@uwm.edu> <91dGsess1@cs.psu.edu> <47471@ut-emx.uucp> <4c9Go-jt1@cs.psu.edu> <47555@ut-emx.uucp> <47641@ut-emx.uucp> <47714@ut-emx.uucp> Sender: root@ut-emx.uucp Reply-To: greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) Distribution: comp Organization: The University of Texas at Austin Lines: 29 In article melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >In article <47714@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: > > Sorry, but I've compiled quite a bit myself on both machines. That 1+ > must have been severely crippled in order to compile _anything_ close to > the speed of an 040 NeXT. > >What programs did you compile? Compiling Objective C programs is >slow, but if it's standard C then the NeXT compiles pretty fast. I don't use Obj-C. If I want OOP I use C++, not that... that... obsenity. :) I am talking about the same or similar C code being compiled here. For example, I have compiled DNet without mods on both machines, and the 1+ was the definite winner in compile speed there. Other than that it's mostly been my own code, which doesn't get very large (I tend to only write little utils or test programs on Unix. My real programming occurs on Amigas and (yech) MSDOS machines). It's nice, though, to have a 100-line module compile in a second or two. I'm not saying the NeXT compiles slowly. It's certainly faster than my 68000 Amiga... :) Greg -- Greg Harp |"I was there to match my intellect on national TV, | against a plumber and an architect, both with a PhD." greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu| -- "I Lost on Jeopardy," Weird Al Yankovic