Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site geowhiz.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!gatech!seismo!uwvax!geowhiz!larry From: larry@geowhiz.UUCP (Larry McVoy) Newsgroups: net.micro.pc,net.lang.pascal Subject: Re: Review of Mystic Pascal for the IBM PC Message-ID: <313@geowhiz.UUCP> Date: Sat, 23-Nov-85 07:50:14 EST Article-I.D.: geowhiz.313 Posted: Sat Nov 23 07:50:14 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 25-Nov-85 06:49:07 EST References: <806@osu-eddie.UUCP> <286@3comvax.UUCP> Reply-To: larry@geowhiz.UUCP (Larry McVoy) Distribution: net Organization: UW Madison, Geology Dept. Lines: 35 Xref: watmath net.micro.pc:5987 net.lang.pascal:393 In article <286@3comvax.UUCP> mikes@3comvax.UUCP (Mike Shannon) writes: >Clayton Elwell in the cited article writes: >> Mystic Pascal is an incremental compiler. You change five lines in a 2000 >> line program, it only recompiles those lines. It compiles the 7K sample >> program supplied with the package in 0.03 seconds. That is not a typo. >> 247 lines in 0.03 seconds. This evening I will benchmark execution >> speed and code size against MS-PASCAL and Turbo Pascal and post the results. >------- > Uh, the way I figure it, .03sec/7kbytes comes out to about 4 and >a half microseconds per character. This amounts to only a couple of >machine instructions per byte. Well, you're both right. I think how works is this, it compiles the code when you load the program. So, with turbo, you get fast load, slow compile, and the other way around with Mystic. Have this guy give times for: START C> turbo sample.pas C (i think you type C for compile) [line #'s flashing by] Done. STOP START C> mystic sample.pas C (or whatever) Done. STOP I think you'll find them comparable. -- Larry McVoy +----------------+ | Slower traffic | Arpa: mcvoy@rsch.wisc.edu | keep right | Uucp: {seismo, ihnp4}!uwvax!geowhiz!geophiz!larry +----------------+