C Neatener - a postscript

Dan Klein dvk at mi-cec.UUCP
Tue Feb 28 04:30:50 AEST 1984

As an answer to George Rosenberg (and others who have sent me mail):

	My examples of the C "neatener" versus the Bliss "optimizer" were
intended as an example to show how certain languages generate better code
than others, and to enumerate some improvements I have found to be possible
and easy (versus those that are hard) to make in Berkeley C.

	I did NOT want to compare Bliss to C, but chose them since C was good
and Bliss was better (at generating efficient code).  I did not want to say
"if I was a compiler, I would..." but chose rather to say "there is a compiler
that does...".  I have my opinions about the relative merits of Bliss and C,
and they are not relevant to the examples I posted.  All that was being done
was to show "this is what BSD C does, and here is how it can be made better".

	Comparing Bliss-10 and Bliss-36 would not be worthwhile, as most people
don't have a PDP-10, but quite a few have VAXen.  Similarly, comparing an
optimizing C compiler with a non-optimizing one would be a pain, since I do
not have access to anything except 4.1c BSD (as I suspect do a majority of
VAX users).

	The final thing I was trying to accomplish (and I admit that I was
being a bit high brow in doing this) was to give some people a little exposure
and information on a subject that they might not otherwise have access to.
Having received a large quantity of favorable mail (yes, I got flames too),
I think I accomplished what I set out to do.

		-Dan Klein, Mellon Institute, Pittsburgh	(412) 578-3382

More information about the Comp.lang.c mailing list