21 Oct
2006
21 Oct
'06
9:08 p.m.
Jay West wrote:
Jim wrote....
A compiler is supposed to generate assembler-level (machine-level)
constructs for what the high-level language is asking for. Nothing is
more efficient than that. If the compiler produced code that was so
incredibly obtuse and broken that it took longer to execute an operation
than an interpreter, the compiler was a piece of crap.
I call serious BS on the statement "some interpreters were faster than
some compilers". People are going to have to back that up with actual
examples before it becomes believable.
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/
Then I'm with Mike: That compiler was
seriously broken.
Nah, it wasn't. It's just that (as has been pointed out
here), pseudo
code that is well designed can sometimes be executed in less
instructions than a compiler generates for the equivalent task.