On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 5:05 PM, bearophile <bearophileHUGS@lycos.com> wrote:
> Jarrett Billingsley:
>> I suppose there's no reason to say one of us or the other is wrong without hearing from the author himself, is there?
>
> I think I am right: https://alioth.debian.org/forum/forum.php?thread_id=14497&forum_id=999
>
> bearophile
>

Then I am sad too.

Jarrett Billingsley:
> Then I am sad too.

But look, they have added ATS instead!

http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=all

It can't appeal people that like C/Algol syntax only, but it comes out at the top as performance...

Bye,
bearophile

bearophile wrote:
> Jarrett Billingsley:
>> Then I am sad too.
> 
> But look, they have added ATS instead!
> 
> http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=all
> 
> It can't appeal people that like C/Algol syntax only, but it comes out at the top as performance...
> 
> Bye,
> bearophile

It firstly compiles to C, then invokes gcc to do the rest. With the same algo, same idea, same trick, and same background compiler, you should have similar speed.

The one who contributes ats entries is also ATS author. He knows every odd & end of his language.

The Anh Tran:
> It firstly compiles to C, then invokes gcc to do the rest. With the same algo, same idea, same trick, and same background compiler, you should have similar speed.

Think about replacing C with asm in your period:

>It firstly compiles to asm, then invokes the assembler to do the rest. With the same algo, same idea, same trick, and same background assembler, you should have similar speed.<

And ATS has a refined (compared to C) type system, that can make practical difference in the way you write ATS code, even if at the end it's all converted to C.

Bye,
bearophile