Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdaisy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond
From: ndiamond@watdaisy.UUCP (Norman Diamond)
Newsgroups: net.ai,net.lang.lisp,net.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Speed with numbers: PDP-10 Maclisp vs. Fortran (details)
Message-ID: <7087@watdaisy.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 18-Mar-85 22:40:02 EST
Article-I.D.: watdaisy.7087
Posted: Mon Mar 18 22:40:02 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 19-Mar-85 06:14:26 EST
References: <242@bu-cs.UUCP>, <316@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> <253@bu-cs.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 25
Xref: watmath net.ai:2634 net.lang.lisp:398 net.lang.ada:238

> If I want to build a system, I don't want to have to switch
> languages in mid-development.  Niggling little details about
> representation switching start using up all my hacking time, which I
> would rather devote to the application level.

That's exactly why you do some planning in very early development (I will
need this routine in that language, so I will code it last and add an
assembly-language interface, or I will code it first and maybe / maybe not
need an assembly-language interface); and why you switch languages only at
the very end of development (when you are actually coding).

When I code a call to a subroutine, I do not suspend this routine and
immediately code the subroutine.  The subroutine is already written or
will be written later.  Language switching is even less frequent than
routine switching.

-- 

   Norman Diamond

UUCP:  {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra}!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond
CSNET: ndiamond%watdaisy@waterloo.csnet
ARPA:  ndiamond%watdaisy%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa

"Opinions are those of the keyboard, and do not reflect on me or higher-ups."