From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <15342.13829.659344.232543@nanonic.hilbert.space>
From: paurea@it.uc3m.es
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Rant (was Re: Plan9 and Ada95?)
In-Reply-To: <200111110138.BAA02696@localhost.localdomain>:Steve Kilbane's message of 01:38:59 Sunday,11 November 2001
References: <aam396@mail.usask.ca>
	<Pine.GSO.4.10.10111100237110.9223-100000@ultra5a.usask.ca>
	<200111110138.BAA02696@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 09:25:41 +0100
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1e2fa846-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

Steve Kilbane writes:
 > From: Steve Kilbane <steve@whitecrow.demon.co.uk>
 > Subject: Re: [9fans] Rant (was Re: Plan9 and Ada95?)
 > Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 01:38:59 +0000
 >
 > In terms of compilation speed versus compiled-code speed, the bias
 > is usually to the latter, 9fans notwithstanding. This is usually
 > the case: extra time spent during the coding phase (whether designing
 > or compiling) pays off in reduced time every time the application is
 > used.

If the compiler generates fast code, you can always recompile the compiler
and it will run faster :-).

--
                 Saludos,
                         Gorka