C vs. FORTRAN

[Tom Neff]

In article <225800204 at uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald at uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>>The odds are pretty good that somebody asking about relative code
>>efficiency is worrying about the wrong issues in choosing a
>>programming language.
>
>I don't understand this statement! Somebody serious about relative
>code efficiency (and mentioning Fortran) probably has a big program.
>They may be worried that it would cost $20000 of cpu time in
>one language instead of $40000 in another. This isn't important?
>OR they might be worried that one would take 300 microseconds to
>process a piece of incoming data, and another language might take
>600 microseconds, and the data is expected to arrive at 400 microsecond
>intervals.

Yes - they MIGHT.

More likely, in my experience, they just like the *idea* of efficient
code, whether or not they can demonstrate just what DEGREE of efficiency
their application requires.

All you have to do is stand around the lunchroom when a bunch of
applications hackers are standing around gossiping about processors and
compilers.  Oh, THAT's got more mips than THIS one!  Oooh, I don't like
THAT compiler, it generates less efficient code!  Say, duhh, which is
better, the 88000 or 486?  Huhhh?

<Burp> The fact is that every extra hour the applications wonk spends
trying to get the #*$&@# compiler or linker or OS loader to work,
or on the phone to some consultant, is worth billions of instructions
on any processor of his choice.  Software that works right, and early,
is more important that a shaved MIP.  However this does not make for
sufficiently macho lunchroom conversation!

-- 
"We walked on the moon --	((	Tom Neff
	you be polite"		 )) 	tneff at bfmny0.UU.NET