Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site astrovax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!vaxine!wjh12!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!wls From: wls@astrovax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: C "neatener" - another example (#9) Message-ID: <228@astrovax.UUCP> Date: Sun, 4-Mar-84 23:50:26 EST Article-I.D.: astrovax.228 Posted: Sun Mar 4 23:50:26 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 6-Mar-84 01:01:20 EST References: mi-cec.212 <252@idis.UUCP> Organization: Princeton Univ. Astrophysics Lines: 16 > I do not understand the point of this. > Your examples are not comparing the C language > to the Bliss-32 (or Common Bliss) language. Maybe I'm missing something but I thought the whole point was not comparing the two languages C vs. BLISS but to show that the "standard" BSD / USG C compiler optimizes inadequately. Personnally I can understand why the Fortran compiler is an embarrasement, considering the attitude in this community toward Fortran. However, I cannot understand why Unix does not come with a super-optimizing C compiler, as any increase in the speed of the code produced will speed up all of Unix. Surely by now better could be done. -- Bill Sebok Princeton University, Astrophysics {allegra,akgua,burl,cbosgd,decvax,ihnp4,kpno,princeton,vax135}!astrovax!wls