Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 04:23:56 11/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 14, 2002 at 22:31:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 14, 2002 at 20:15:44, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On November 14, 2002 at 13:01:55, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>Implementation matters a lot indeed, but functional languages >>will *never* be as fast as c(++). Also JAVA will *never* be >>as fast as c(++), no *matter* the implementation. > >Sure it can be. A java compiler that compiles directly to native machine >language has no particular problems to overcome beyond those that a C >compiler has to deal with. I seem to remember Java has all sorts of security issues - bounds checking and such. Of course you could write a different compiler and get native code and all that, but then it wouldn't really be java anymore, microsoft tried that IIRC ;) I think programming lowlevel has advantages, like a C compiler will never be as fast as good assembler code. Highlevel functional programming will probably be even worse. -S. >If you are talking about pointers, that's a non-issue. Cray Blitz didn't >use pointers at all as they were not in Fortran prior to the fortran 90 >specification... and it didn't hurt us one bit... nor the compiler... >
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.