[TUHS] Comments on "C"

Ron Natalie ron at ronnatalie.com
Fri Sep 9 05:20:31 AEST 2016


Efficiency isn't always the issue.   Even with the single layer break (and
certainly with the local goto) you can break structure.
The language, in my opinion, doesn't need further ways to break structure.


I'd have settled for a more robust preprocessor language, but such is life
with what was a ground breaking language back in the  70's.

Most of my complaints about C are because it's "standard" library was awful
back in the seventies and it really didn't improve much over the years.

-----Original Message-----
From: TUHS [mailto:tuhs-bounces at minnie.tuhs.org] On Behalf Of Tony Finch
Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2016 10:23 AM
To: Noel Chiappa
Cc: tuhs at minnie.tuhs.org
Subject: Re: [TUHS] Comments on "C"

Noel Chiappa <jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>     > 1.  Computed goto
>
> Can't you make a switch statement do what you need there?

Interesting comments on how effectively CPUs and compilers handle inner
loops of interpreters:

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.lua.general/75426

Lots more research on interpreter efficiency:

http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/projects/interpreters.html

Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot at dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/  -  I xn--zr8h punycode
German Bight, Humber, Thames: Southwest 4 or 5, increasing 6 at times.
Smooth or slight, occasionally moderate. Mainly fair. Good, occasionally
poor.



More information about the TUHS mailing list