vantreeck@logic.DEC (03/06/86)
A recent article in EE Times covered Borland Intl.'s announcement of Turbo Pascal. An incremental compiler with a speed of 100KLIPS on an IBM PC and 300KLIPS on an IBM PC AT. Does anyone know what benchmark was used to obtain these numbers, e.g., naive_reverse? Or is this just some BS from Borland's marketing department? -George
blenko@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Blenko) (03/07/86)
EE Times mentions a 100kLIPs figure and a 300kLIPs figure, the latter for a compiled, single-clause database. No, they didn't say where the former figure came from, and yes, it would be nice to know. I called the number listed and was told that they were providing no other information at this time. The product is in testing. A further announcement is scheduled for April, and you can get on their mailing list for that (I called (408) 438-8400 and asked for information about Turbo PROLOG). Tom
bull@onion.cs.reading.UUCP (Stephen) (03/10/86)
In article <1524@decwrl.DEC.COM> vantreeck@dec-logic.UUCP writes: > >A recent article in EE Times covered Borland Intl.'s >announcement of Turbo Pascal. An incremental compiler with >a speed of 100KLIPS on an IBM PC and 300KLIPS on an IBM PC >AT. Does anyone know what benchmark was used to obtain >these numbers, e.g., naive_reverse? Or is this just some BS >from Borland's marketing department? > >-George Come on..... Edinburgh Prolog on a DEC 10 only runs at 40KLIPS ......... stephen bull -------------------------------------------------------------------------- tel: 875123 ex 411 , ex 7203 mail: bull@onion.cs.reading.ac.uk --------------------------------------------------------------------------
cdsm@icdoc.UUCP (Chris Moss) (03/10/86)
In article <1524@decwrl.DEC.COM> vantreeck@dec-logic.UUCP writes: > >A recent article in EE Times covered Borland Intl.'s >announcement of Turbo Pascal. An incremental compiler with ^^^^^^ you mean Prolog don't you! >a speed of 100KLIPS on an IBM PC and 300KLIPS on an IBM PC >AT. Does anyone know what benchmark was used to obtain >these numbers, e.g., naive_reverse? Or is this just some BS >from Borland's marketing department? I gather that Turbo Prolog is basically York Prolog - (which is of course written in Pascal and thus doubtlessly uses Turbo Pascal). But it's not fast. I guess they mean 100 LIPS and 300 LIPS respectively! --Chris Moss, Imperial College.
rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) (03/21/86)
In article <1524@decwrl.DEC.COM> vantreeck@logic.DEC writes: > >A recent article in EE Times covered Borland Intl.'s >announcement of Turbo Pascal. An incremental compiler with ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >a speed of 100KLIPS on an IBM PC and 300KLIPS on an IBM PC >AT. Does anyone know what benchmark was used to obtain >these numbers, e.g., naive_reverse? Or is this just some BS >from Borland's marketing department? > >-George Incremental compilers cheat!:-) They tokenize, resolve references, and do about 80% of the actual work while you are typing in the program. Really good ones can link a module change to existing modules. There are about 20 other good tricks that incremental compilers can use. A more honest :-) quote might be bytes of Object created per second. Of course, since there are only a few incremental compilers around, any comparison is kind of silly. The main advantage is the ability to interactively compile/link/load/run your program almost as fast as an interpreter can do it. The main disadvantage is that to get this blinding speed, you have to use the provided editor. Some of the older incrementals (Basic-09 et. al.) had LINE editors (yeachh:-)). If you used a screen editor and "Loaded" the source, the initial load could take a while (still quite fast). Basic is an easy language for incremental compilation, just use calls instead of "tokens". It will be interesting to see a good structured language in an incremental form.