Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:11225 comp.lang.fortran:898 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!labrea!sri-unix!garth!walter From: walter@garth.UUCP (Walter Bays) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: Mathematical expression syntax (was: C vs. Fortran) Message-ID: <895@garth.UUCP> Date: 8 Jul 88 04:40:57 GMT References: <20506@beta.lanl.gov> <559@lanl.gov> <20509@beta.lanl.gov> <30165@cca.CCA.COM> <77@obie.UUCP> Reply-To: walter@garth.UUCP (Walter Bays) Organization: INTERGRAPH (APD) -- Palo Alto, CA Lines: 26 In article <77@obie.UUCP> wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) writes: >> ........................................... The arithmetic IF is >> obsolete and is only maintained for backwards compatibility. I don't >> know anyone who uses it for new code. > > I do. ... A friend was working on a CPU simulator My friend used > arithmetic if statements in that program; he even used (gasp!) computed > gotos. The final run times were on the order of 3:1 - 4:1. [As > opposed to 12:1 to 20:1 projected otherwise on a VAX-11/780 with FPA.] > Was it worth it? He thought so, I thought so. You decide. I think not. Keep the clearer, more maintainable code. Take one year's maintenance on the 780 and buy a new workstation to replace it. (It doesn't even have to be ours, though of course that's preferable :-) Then you get run times better than 3:1, and continue saving on both hardare and software maintenance. You may ask, "Didn't I ever write tricky code for speed when constrained to a particular hardware base?" Of course. "Did I ever write tricky code for speed when there was no compelling reason to?" Yes. I admit it. It's addictive. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ My opinions are my own. Objects in mirror are closer than they appear. E-Mail route: ...!pyramid!garth!walter (415) 852-2384 USPS: Intergraph APD, 2400 Geng Road, Palo Alto, California 94303 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------