Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!rutgers!apple!bloom-beacon!gatech!cwjcc!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!cornell!batcomputer!itsgw!steinmetz!vdsvax!sierra!lamson
From: lamson@sierra.uucp (scott h lamson)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: FORTRAN 88
Message-ID: <5833@vdsvax.steinmetz.ge.com>
Date: 25 Oct 88 12:06:34 GMT
References: <669@convex.UUCP> <5826@vdsvax.steinmetz.ge.com> <74284@sun.uucp>
Sender: news@vdsvax.steinmetz.ge.com
Distribution: comp.lang.fortran
Lines: 19
In-reply-to: khb%chiba@Sun.COM's message of 24 Oct 88 18:50:35 GMT


In article <74284@sun.uucp> khb%chiba@Sun.COM (Keith Bierman - Sun Tactical Engineering) writes:

> > As for the speed of the compiler, my own opinion is this
> >is a non-issue.  
> I must disagree here. Compile speeds are killing VLIW vendors (Cydrome
> and Multiflow).
I haven't used Multiflow's or Cydrome's, so I can't say much about
them.  I have used two Fortran compilers on the CRAY-2, one of which runs
about ten times longer (cft77 written in Pascal) than the other (cft2
written in assembler).  I have no problem with cft77's compile times.
It has supported more fortran-77 features sooner, and produces
something like 20% faster code.  So within one order of magnitude,
compile time is, for me, not a concern.  Functionality and optimized
resultant code is just more important. 

        Scott|  ARPA:      lamson@ge-crd.arpa
       Lamson|  UUCP:      uunet!steinmetz!sierra!lamson
(518)387-5795|  UUCP:      uunet!steinmetz!lamson!crd