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.)