🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <dillon.0sh6@overload.Berkeley.CA.US> dillon@overload.Berkeley.CA.US (Matthew  
Dillon) writes:
|       No, you are picking up a discussion in the middle.	If you had read my
|       previous postings you would have noted that I acknowledge the
|       portability and compatibility issues as something Objective-C is good
|       at and C++ is not so good at, mainly due to the emphasis on the
|       run-time system in Objective-C.  My discussion above is related to the
|       efficiency issues of that trade-off.  Many people, myself included, do
|       not believe that either Objective-C or C++ are the proper solution.
|       Objective-C because it is impossible to optimize it and C++ because,
|       rightly, it should have been designed from scratch instead of hacked
|       onto C.
|   
In my experience (over 30 years of professional programming), your choice of
algorithm has a much larger effect on performance than your choice of programming
language or compiler technology.

If programmers spent more time working on their algorithm and less time arguing 
about the efficiency of their compiler, they would produce faster programs sooner.

I have been able to speed up programs by a factor of 1000X or more by changing the
basic algorithm.  I have never seen a speedup that large from a compiler.  [Except
in cases where the compiler changes the basic algorithm (e.g. loop unrolling)]


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Donald A. Lewine                (508) 870-9008 Voice
Data General Corporation        (508) 366-0750 FAX
4400 Computer Drive. MS D112A
Westboro, MA 01580  U.S.A.