caasnsr@nmtsun.nmt.edu (Clifford Adams) (09/15/88)
In article <1400@garth.UUCP> smryan@garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan) writes: >Well, before I jump in, I would like to see proof that extensible languages >are significantly harder to compile. Extensible languages do not need to be hard to compile, or slow. Take FORTH for example. Forth is *very* extensible. Forth also is one of the fastest languages (in compilation speed). For a real-world example, here are some results from compiling my current Forth project (ForthLisp). Actions done during compilation. 0. Load (from csh) the Forth nucleus (about 70k) 1. Compile the linker (6k of Forth). 2. Link a 1k C file with a Forth library (29k) to produce a 4k object file. Load that file 3. Compile nearly 50k of Forth source into 12k of object code. The source is split into 42 files, all retrieved from a network file server. The above takes less than 30 seconds on a Sun 3/260 (load average about 1). To compile a simple "Hello World" program and link the output libraries takes about 10 seconds on the same system. -- Clifford A. Adams --- "I understand only inasmuch as I become." ForthLisp Project Programmer (Goal: LISP interpreter in Forth) caasnsr@nmtsun.nmt.edu ...cmcl2!lanl!unm-la!unmvax!nmtsun!caasnsr