Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!nott-cs!anw
From: anw@nott-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: FORTRAN Horror
Message-ID: <551@tuck.nott-cs.UUCP>
Date: 24 Mar 88 14:25:49 GMT
References: <24861@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> <1135@pembina.UUCP> <2596@pdn.UUCP>
Reply-To: anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker)
Organization: Department of Mathematics, The University, NOTTINGHAM, NG7 2RD, UK.
Lines: 24

In article <2596@pdn.UUCP> alan@pdn.UUCP (0000-Alan Lovejoy) writes:
> [...]			    When Ada (Modula-2, C, C++, ML, Oberon,
> whatever the latest and greatest language is...) compilers can
> produce significantly faster code than FORTRAN compilers,
> [then users MIGHT switch ...]

	Many years ago, I ran the Whetstone benchmark through a collection
of compilers on the University mainframe, then an ICL 1906A.  The basic
results were (in kilo-Whetstones per second):

	Pascal		661	[not my figure, no further info]
	Algol 68	628	[Malvern compiler, 1 pass, little optimisation]
	Fortran		585	[ICL optimising compiler, ? no checks]
	Algol 60	379	[ICL compiler]
	Algol 68	355	[as above, but with full checking]
	Fortran		282	[ICL non-optimising compiler]

(Fuller details in the conference proceedings "Applications of Algol 68",
Univ of E Anglia, March 1976.)  I wasn't exactly overwhelmed by the hordes
of engineers beating a path to my door, and wanting to know more about
Algol 68 or Pascal.  :-(
--
Andy Walker, Maths Dept, Nott'm Univ.
anw@maths.nott.ac.uk