Path: news.daimi.aau.dk!news.uni-c.dk!sunic!sunic.sunet.se!news.funet.fi!news.csc.fi!news.eunet.fi!news.spb.su!KremlSun!satisfy.kiae.su!news.techno.ru!demos!uunet!news.mathworks.com!news.alpha.net!uwm.edu!msunews!netnews.upenn.edu!news
From: wziller@math.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: comp.lang.beta
Subject: Re: BETA questions
Date: 10 Mar 1995 21:06:18 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania
Lines: 28
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3jqf0a$2on@netnews.upenn.edu>
References: <3jq90s$ojp@belfort.daimi.aau.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ts3-09.upenn.edu

In article <3jq90s$ojp@belfort.daimi.aau.dk> Wilfried Rupflin  
<wr@polly.informatik.uni-dortmund.de> writes:
> >How fast is BETA (executable speed)...compared to Eiffel and C++?
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> Compared to Eiffel it is extremely fast (I never felt a need for
> a comparison). Also with respect to C++ I can't give you any figures
> but an impression: The compilation of non-trivial C++ programs
> involving bigger class libraries tends to be a matter of 10, 20
> minutes or even 1/2 an hour or more. The BETA compiler (written
> almost entirely in BETA) takes for compiling and statically
> linking a BETA program with significantly more than 1000 LOC and
> including Motif and other libraries less than 3 minutes on an old
> and slow SparcStation.

I didn't mean how fast are BETA compilers at compiling code, but rather how  
fast is the code produced when run compared to the speed of Eiffel and C++.

How is it that you say that BETA's compilation speed is faster than Eiffel.   
Have you tried out ISE's Eiffel implementation with Melting Ice technology?   
The amount of time it takes to recompile is proportional to the amount of code  
changed -- this usually equates to a couple of seconds!

Thanks for the info.

Regards,
Wolfgang Ziller
p.s. Why is the traffic on this newsgroup so LOW?