Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!teknowledge-vaxc!sri-unix!quintus!ok
From: ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: PL/I performance
Message-ID: <427@quintus.UUCP>
Date: 19 Sep 88 01:16:25 GMT
References: <13587@mimsy.UUCP> <3698@lanl.gov> <423@quintus.UUCP> <163@mic.UUCP>
Sender: news@quintus.UUCP
Reply-To: ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Organization: Quintus Computer Systems, Inc.
Lines: 12

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.)