From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-Id: <200111110138.BAA02696@localhost.localdomain>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Rant (was Re: Plan9 and Ada95?)
In-Reply-To: Message from Andrey A Mirtchovski <aam396@mail.usask.ca>
   of "Sat, 10 Nov 2001 02:39:30 CST." <Pine.GSO.4.10.10111100237110.9223-100000@ultra5a.usask.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Steve Kilbane <steve@whitecrow.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 01:38:59 +0000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1e217546-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

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 I had to rank the attributes of a compiler, I'd say:

1. Correctness.
2a. Speed of compiled code
2b. Size of compiled code
4. Usefulness of debugging
5. Speed of compilation process.

(2a and 2b vary in order, depending on particular circumstances)

But then, this ranking comes from a commercial compiler market, where
the customer doesn't see anything but the finished product. If you're
in an environment where you have cause to recompile the entire OS and
surrounding applications four times a day, I can see how (5) might work
its way up the list.

As a side-note: the "I don't care about run-time speed if I can run it
soon" approach is one of the reasons why Perl is popular.

steve