Re: PL/I nostalgia

From	glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
Newsgroups	comp.compilers
Subject	Re: PL/I nostalgia
Date	2012-09-19 03:56 +0000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<12-09-015@comp.compilers> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <12-04-077@comp.compilers> <12-04-081@comp.compilers> <12-04-082@comp.compilers> <12-04-084@comp.compilers> <12-09-014@comp.compilers>

Show all headers | View raw

robin <robin51@dodo.com.au> wrote:
>> [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]

Well, the dynamically allocated variables and save areas for PL/I are
naturally slower than static allocated Fortran IV.

Also, many PL/I features naturally don't optimize as well as Fortran.

> Finally I have to hand Tucker's "Programming Languages".

I have one of those. Not my favorite, but not bad.
"History of Programming Languages" is better.

> Case study 2, matrix inversion with 20 x 20 data:

What page is that on?

> 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)

Not in the second edition.

> 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.

When did that appear? I don't remember it in (F).

> 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.

I suppose. A better test would use a larger matrix, though.

> 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.

If you really want to be fair, add the compilation time to the
run time, then see which one is faster.

-- glen

Back to comp.compilers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Decades of compiler technology and what do we get? Robert AH Prins <robert@prino.org> - 2012-04-22 18:57 +0000
  Re: Decades of compiler technology and what do we get? Robert AH Prins <robert@prino.org> - 2012-04-22 22:14 +0000
  Re: PL/I nostalgia, was Decades of compiler technology and what do we get? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-04-23 00:03 +0000
    Re: PL/I nostalgia "robin" <robin51@dodo.com.au> - 2012-04-25 09:07 +1000
      Re: PL/I nostalgia glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-04-24 23:52 +0000
        Re: PL/I nostalgia "robin" <robin51@dodo.com.au> - 2012-04-28 21:30 +1000
          Re: PL/I nostalgia glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-04-28 16:11 +0000
            Re: PL/I nostalgia Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> - 2012-04-29 10:16 -0400
            Re: PL/I code "robin" <robin51@dodo.com.au> - 2012-05-05 00:45 +1000
              Re: PL/I code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-05-05 05:20 +0000
                Re: Fortran calls, was PL/I code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-05-06 05:13 +0000
                Re: Archaic hardware (was Fortran calls) "robin" <robin51@dodo.com.au> - 2012-05-09 10:46 +1000
          Re: PL/I nostalgia "robin" <robin51@dodo.com.au> - 2012-09-19 11:04 +1000
            Re: PL/I nostalgia glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-19 03:56 +0000
              Re: PL/I nostalgia "robin" <robin51@dodo.com.au> - 2012-09-21 13:53 +1000
                Re: PL/I nostalgia glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-21 07:00 +0000
                Re: PL/I nostalgia "robin" <robin51@dodo.com.au> - 2012-09-30 10:45 +1000

csiph-web