Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!ads.com!killer!usenet
From: anders@verity.com (Anders Wallgren)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: MPW and Think
Message-ID: <1991Jun25.210312.14060@verity.com>
Date: 25 Jun 91 21:03:12 GMT
References: <1991Jun23.014722.20288@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> <3764@charon.cwi.nl>
Sender: usenet@verity.com (USENET News)
Reply-To: anders@verity.com (Anders Wallgren)
Organization: Verity, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 18
In-Reply-To: guido@cwi.nl (Guido van Rossum)

In article <3764@charon.cwi.nl>, guido@cwi (Guido van Rossum) writes:
>I have one data point.  I developed my Python programming language
>interpreter largely on my humble MacPlus with 1 Meg of memory using
>various versions of Think C (currently 4.0).  Just to test the
>portability of the stuff I decided to compile with MPW 2.0 (the only
>version we have).  Surprise, the resulting Python interpreter was
>actually SLOWER than the one compiled by Think C.  I can't remember by
>how much but believe it was by about 10 or 20 percent.  And MPW also
>compiled ten times slower, and wasn't able to compile one particularly
>large function (a switch with ~100 cases) in the given memory.  And
>then the messy hacks needed to add segmentation to the code :-(
>

I wish I could give you a more concrete counter-example, rather than
just the following: the MPW 2.0 and MPW 3.0 C compilers are not the
same compiler, so this test isn't really accurate.

anders