scott wrote:

> What's sad is if the authors of such languages have not thought about 
> cache usage when designing the compiler.

What's sad is that a cache need to exist in the first place. It means 
that whole classes of highly efficient algorithms aren't efficient any 
more. It means you have to mutilate your program designs just to keep 
the cache happy.

But still, there's nothing that anybody can ever do about it, so I guess 
there's no point worrying about it...

> As always, if you want complete control over the CPU use assembler, if 
> you want a little less control use a language like C.  You use higher 
> level languages to make writing the code easier, but you lose direct 
> control of the CPU.

I don't *want* low-level control over the CPU - the sad thing is that 
with current designs, it's completely necessary if you want any 
semblance of performance. With current designs, it seems that basically 
any attempt to use any language higher than assembly is doomed to abject 
failure, performance-wise. And this saddens me.

Post a reply to this message