🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2172@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>, othello@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Mystery) writes:
> In a recent article dlt@csun.UUCP (Dave Thompson) wrote:
> >the queens program takes significantly longer to find all (92) 
> >solutions than does TML (TML=11 seconds (with printing) vs LSP 2.5-3 
> >*minutes* (without printing)).  The source code in both cases is 
> >identical.  The LSP compile options (D, N, V, & R) are turned off.  
> >Why is LSP so slow?
> >
> LSP does alot of stuff in its shell -- yes even with all options off... Have
> you compared the times with the program compiled as an application and all
> options off?  I know that you will find LSP about equal in speed to TML

Actually, running the LSP-created application didn't really seem to make much
of a difference timewise (it was SO SLOW I didn't bother to time it).  The 
only thing that I can think of that makes this particular program different 
from others that I've run is that it is recursive.  Perhaps LSP doesn't 
handle that too efficiently.  It *does* seem to do other things *quite*
well.

AS a side note, I've also run the eight queens program on Turbo Pascal.  The
object code size is quite a bit larger than TML (less than LSP) but seems
to run with speed comparable to TML (perhaps a bit slower...).  I haven't
gotten down to serious benchmarks, yet.  Turbo has quite a fast compiler.
The only thing I've noticed so far in my brief examination is that you
can't back-tab in the editor.  If you tab-forward you have to backspace the
appropriate number of spaces to get back where you were.

-- 
Dave Thompson		     uucp:   {ihnp4|hplabs|psivax}!csun!dlt
CSUN Computer Center         phone:  (818) 885-2790
18111 Nordhoff Street, Northridge, CA 91330