Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!dcl-cs!aber-cs!pcg
From: pcg@aber-cs.UUCP (Piercarlo Grandi)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Common subexpression optimization
Summary: Grotty implementation oriented languages of the past
	are different...
Message-ID: <1629@aber-cs.UUCP>
Date: 9 Feb 90 20:43:20 GMT
Reply-To: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi)
Organization: Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth
	(Disclaimer: my statements are purely personal)
Lines: 25

In article <2115@castle.ed.ac.uk> nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) writes:
    In article <838.18:06:33@stealth.acf.nyu.edu>, brnstnd@stealth writes:
    >Piercarlo is entirely correct. If you care about ``information hiding''
    >and the ``purity'' of your code more than efficiency, you can't expect
    >fast code. If you can't bear to put your original code in comments and
    >write an efficient version with temporary variables, you don't deserve
    >fast code.
    
    This is rubbish, check out the performance of New Jersey ML
    (high-level functional language, efficient optimised native code
    generation).

Hey, this is not fair! you are compared a cleanly designed,
high level language, with C and Fortran here.

If you can roll your own, and make it clean, everything changes.
I don't like functional languages, but ML is pretty good. I used
to like very much Aleph, a CWI language based on CDL, based on
twolevel/attribute grammars. Very clever, very clean design.
Algol 68, for many applications, is not bad either. APL, SQL,
ICON, etcetera.
-- 
Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi           | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth        | UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk