From: janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com   
      
   On 26.10.2025 12:26, bart wrote:   
   > On 26/10/2025 06:25, Janis Papanagnou wrote:   
   >> (This reply is not meant for bart, but rather for all interested   
   >> folks who should not get repelled by his FUD posts.)   
   >>   
   >> On 25.10.2025 00:18, bart wrote:   
   >>> [...]   
   >>>   
   >>> (I remember trying to build A68G, an interpreter, on Windows, and the   
   >>> 'configure' step was a major obstacle. But I was willing to isolate the   
   >>> 12 C source files involved, then it was built in one second.   
   >>>   
   >>> I did of course try building it in Linux too, and it took about 5   
   >>> minutes that I recall, using a spinnning hard drive, mostly spent   
   >>> running through that configure script.   
   >>   
   >> (I don't know what system or system configuration the poster runs.   
   >> I'm well aware that if you are using the Windows platform you may   
   >> suffer from many things; but the platform choice is your decision!   
   >> But maybe he's just misremembering; and nonetheless spreading FUD.)   
   >>   
   >> I've a quite old (~16+ years old) Linux system that was back these   
   >> days when I bought it already at the _very low performance range_.   
   >> With this old system the ./configure needs less than 10 seconds,   
   >> and the build process with make about _half a minute_ for the whole   
   >> a68g Genie system. - The whole procedure, from software download,   
   >> extraction, configure/make, and start an Algol application, needs   
   >> one minute! (Make that two minutes if you are typing v_e_r_y slowly   
   >> or have a slow download link. Or just put the necessary commands in   
   >> a shell file; just did that and it needed (including the download)   
   >> less than 45 seconds, and ready to run.)   
   >   
   >   
   > The 5 minutes I quoted may have been for CPython. It would be for some   
   > Linux running under VirtualBox on a 2010 cheapest-in-the-shop PC.   
   >   
   > If I try A68G now, under WSL, using a 2021 second-cheapest PC but with   
   > SSD, I get:   
   >   
   >    ./configure   20 seconds   
   >    make          90 seconds   
      
   Have you examined what WSL and Windows is adding to your numbers?   
      
   (As I've noted several times already I'd not be surprised if your   
   platform contributes to your disappointment here.)   
      
   And you've seen my numbers. (Older PC, no SSDs, etc. - but Unix.)   
      
   (But I also don't think that SSDs would here any significant impact   
   have. - But, yes, I know you're counting "quality" in microseconds   
   (while completely ignoring other more important factors), so it may   
   be important for you; I acknowledge that.)   
      
   >   
   > Trying CDECL again (I've done it several times after deleting the folder):   
   >   
   >    ./configure   35 seconds   
   >    make          49 seconds   
   >   
   > However the A68G configure script is 11000 lines; the CDECL one 31600   
   > lines.   
   >   
   > (I wonder why the latter needs 20000 more lines? I guess nobody is   
   > curious - or they simply don't care. OK, let's make 100,000 and see if   
   > anyone complains! Is it possible this is some elaborate joke on the part   
   > of auto-conf to discover just how trusting and tolerant people can be?)   
      
   Frankly, I don't know what features 'cdecl' actually all supports.   
   And, honestly, I understand that you want _for a simple task_ no   
   overhead in any case. From the posts here I've got the impression   
   that 'cdecl' might do a bit more than you expect; no? To judge any   
   misuse of resources or any unjustified complexity we'd need to know   
   the intention of the tools, its feature coverage, and platforms   
   supported. If there's something to enhance there's luckily options   
   you have, issue bug/feature requests, or (in case of open source),   
   you could change the things that you think are "obviously wrong".   
      
   >   
   >   
   > Anyway, I then tried this new 3.10 A68G on the Fannkuch(9) benchmark:   
   >   
   >    a68g fann.a68  5 seconds   
   >    ./fann       3+3 seconds (via a68g --compile -O3 fann.a68)   
   >   
   > I then tried it under my scripting language (not statically typed):   
   >   
   >    qq fann  0.4 seconds (qq built with my non-optimising compiler)   
      
   Your 'qq' is an Algol 68 implementation?   
      
   (If not then you're comparing apples to oranges!)   
      
   >   
   > 'qq' takes about 0.1 seconds to build - under Windows which is   
   > considered slow for development. So, 1000 times faster to build, and it   
   > runs this program at least, 10 times faster, despite being dynamically   
   > typed.   
   >   
   > This is the vast difference between my world and yours.   
      
   If 'qq' is some language unrelated to Algol 68 this difference tells   
   nothing. (So please clarify. - Or else stop vacuous comparisons.)   
      
   >   
   >>The whole procedure, from software download,   
   >> extraction, configure/make, and start an Algol application, needs   
   >> one minute!   
   >   
   > Only one minute; impressive!   
      
   Is that meant ironic/sarcastic? - Remember I was replying to your FUD   
   and misinformation post that purported that the Genie compile process   
   would have required five minutes!   
      
   > How about this:   
   >   
   >   c:\qx>tm mm -r \mx\mm -r qq hello   
   >   Hello World   
   >   TM: 0.21   
      
   (This doesn't tell me anything. But most likely it's anyway irrelevant   
   on the Algol 68 topic - or rather non-topic - that you've made up.)   
      
   >   
   > This runs my systems language /from source code/, whch then runs my   
   > interpreter /from source code/ (ie. compiles into memory and runs   
   > immediately) then runs that test program.   
   >   
   > In 1/5th of a second (or 1/300th of a minute). This is equivalent to   
   > first compiling gcc from source (and all those extra utilities you seem   
   > to need) before using it/them to build a68g. I guess that would take a   
   > bit more than a minute.   
      
   So you're again advertising your personal language and tools. - I'm not   
   interested in non-standard language (or Windows-) tools, as you've been   
   told so many times (also by others).   
      
   The tools I'm using for my personal purposes, and those that I had been   
   using for professional purposes, all served the necessary requirements.   
   Your's don't.   
      
   Janis   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)