Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED!nerds-end From: "robin" Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: PL/I nostalgia Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:04:53 +1000 Organization: Compilers Central Lines: 28 Sender: johnl@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <12-09-014@comp.compilers> References: <12-04-070@comp.compilers> <12-04-077@comp.compilers> <12-04-081@comp.compilers> <12-04-082@comp.compilers> <12-04-084@comp.compilers> NNTP-Posting-Host: news.iecc.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: leila.iecc.com 1348018380 15165 64.57.183.58 (19 Sep 2012 01:33:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@iecc.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 01:33:00 +0000 (UTC) Keywords: PL/I, history Posted-Date: 18 Sep 2012 21:33:00 EDT X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:750 > [The code fron PL/I F was comparablw to Fortran G, but much worse than > Fortran H. The PL/I optimizing compiler's code was better, but still > not as good as Fortran H and its descendants. -John] Finally I have to hand Tucker's "Programming Languages". Case study 2, matrix inversion with 20 x 20 data: with IBM 370-145 FORTRAN (G) execution time 8.41 secs (H) execution time 5.28 secs. With IBM 370-145 PL/I (F) execution time 6.31 secs PL/I Optimiser execution time 5.77 secs. (refer to pages 112 and 279 for times) However, in the case of the PL/I program, Tucker //omitted// to supply the option (REORDER) which is necessary to obtain full optimisation. Thus, the PL/I optimiser execution obtained was larger than it should have been. It is clear that the times for FORTRAN (G) and PL/I(F) are equivalent, and that FORTRAN(H) and PL/I optimiser times are equivalent. As well as that, FORTRAN (H) required c. 150K of memory (i.e. a 256K machine) which was far more than the 128K that we had initially, whereas PL/I (F) required only 64K and IIRC FORTRAN (G) a little more.