From: antispam@fricas.org   
      
   bart  wrote:   
   > On 31/10/2025 00:28, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >> On 2025-10-30, David Brown  wrote:   
   >>> If I were developing a compiler, I would not advertise any kind of   
   >>> lines-per-second value.  It is a totally useless metric - as useless as   
   >>> measuring developer performance on the lines of code he/she writes per day.   
   >>   
   >> If that were your only advantage, you'd have to flout it.   
   >>   
   >> "[[ Our compiler emits lousy code, emits only half the required ISO   
   >> diagnostics (and those are all there are), and is compatible with only   
   >> 75% of your system's header files, and 80% of the ABI, but ...]] have you   
   >> seen the raw speed in lines per second?"   
   >>   
   >   
   > How would Turbo C compare then?   
      
   I probably used Turbo C once (to compile a C program fetched from   
   the net).  But I used Turbo Pascal and later Borland C (which was   
   supposed to be an optimizing compiler).  AFAICS main attraction   
   of Turbo family in general was fast compilation.  But generated   
   code was poor, much bigger and slower than code from optimizing   
   compilers.  I used Borland C to deliver a few programs for   
   Windows (I developed them using gcc on Linux, Borland C was   
   just for final tests and delivery).  But later I have set up   
   Mingw cross compiler and testing showed that gcc compiled code   
   was significantly faster than output from Borland C.   
      
   It seems that "professionals" preferred other compilers, like   
   Microsoft one or Watcom (or possibly others, there were quite   
   a lot of different compilers in this period).   
      
   --   
                                 Waldek Hebisch   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)