nemesis wrote:
> It is very difficult to write compilers that generate optimized native 
> code as good as the ones already provided by mature C compilers that 
> have been around for ages.

It depends on the language, of course. I'd hate to (for example) try to 
compile FORTH into C code instead of native code. Smalltalk would be likely 
as difficult. And both the JVM and the .NET system would seem to do a not 
bad job. Plus, of course, anything on a new chip is not going to have code 
as good.

Sure. Using C as an intermediate language for another language that's 
basically C-ish is probably a good idea. I was merely arguing that the idea 
that "my language runs as fast as C code" is not obviously true from the 
fact that it uses C as an intermediate language.  Using C as an intermediate 
language doesn't make it trivial to run as fast as hand-rolled C.

>  Would it be worth the pain generating assebly not as optimized as a C 
> compiler?...

You're arguing against a position I never held.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message