d25001@mic.UUCP (Carrington Dixon) (09/18/88)
In article <423@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: > >PL/I is not a language that springs to mind when one thinks "high >performance". Was it that people didn't try hard enough, or are there >fast *full* PL/I systems, or is Fortran 8X doomed by the resemblance? Several months ago I did some benchmarking of compilers on an IBM 3090 system. In terms of computation speed (scalar only, of course) IBM's PL/I compiled code was _very_ close to that of VS FORTRAN. The SAS/C compiler was worse by a factor of two and the C compiler that IBM was then selling -- they've just announced a newer (and better?) one -- was down by something like a factor of four. I/O performance was again pretty close for PL/I and FORTRAN with PL/I in the lead. SAS/C trailed again by a factor of two and the IBM C by an abysmal factor of ten or so. Carrington Dixon UUCP: { convex, killer }!mic!d25001
ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) (09/19/88)
In article <163@mic.UUCP> d25001@mic.UUCP (Carrington Dixon) writes: >In article <423@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >>PL/I is not a language that springs to mind when one thinks "high >>performance". Was it that people didn't try hard enough, or are there >>fast *full* PL/I systems, or is Fortran 8X doomed by the resemblance? > > Several months ago I did some benchmarking of compilers on an IBM 3090 >system. In terms of computation speed (scalar only, of course) IBM's PL/I >compiled code was _very_ close to that of VS FORTRAN. The SAS/C compiler was >worse by a factor of two ... I stand corrected. (I hear that the NorCroft C compiler is pretty good.)