From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_50 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:6e8f:: with SMTP id c15mr24475635qtv.122.1622642682284; Wed, 02 Jun 2021 07:04:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:6d02:: with SMTP id i2mr46300930ybc.309.1622642682126; Wed, 02 Jun 2021 07:04:42 -0700 (PDT)
Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.uzoreto.com!tr1.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2021 07:04:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <0001HW.2666F48E011A97D0700009A5738F@news.individual.net>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=131.95.212.238; posting-account=JSxOkAoAAADa00TJoz2WZ_46XrZCdXeS
NNTP-Posting-Host: 131.95.212.238
References: <lq5qv9$hhk$1@speranza.aioe.org> <db900d69-5f84-4d67-bf82-eaacf0d6e265n@googlegroups.com> <5afvagd0g4uajs1ji35v3lorkgb2kd56qu@4ax.com> <87wnrkf9pr.fsf@nightsong.com> <37c582bb-3012-4954-a26c-5d9614ac0c84n@googlegroups.com> <e4a9696c-d72e-46bd-9567-93d9654760cen@googlegroups.com> <ac08967c-766e-489c-918a-94ed86a79c67n@googlegroups.com> <s8qr6e$1i2o$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s90di4$1v5f$1@gioia.aioe.org> <0001HW.2664183000DCDBDE700005E5438F@news.individual.net> <87k0nff07k.fsf@nightsong.com> <0001HW.2665B79F01080BFC700005E5438F@news.individual.net> <87fsy2febp.fsf@nightsong.com> <0001HW.2666503201136FD9700005E5438F@news.individual.net> <877djdfs8h.fsf@nightsong.com> <0001HW.2666F48E011A97D0700009A5738F@news.individual.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <52640622-179a-40d3-a0c1-da113a8984f2n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: why the pascal family of languages (Pascal, Ada, Modula-2,2,Oberon, Delphi, Algol,...) failed compared to the C family?
From: John Perry <john.perry@usm.edu>
Injection-Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2021 14:04:42 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:62088
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 6:04:49 PM UTC-5, Bill Findlay wrote:
> On 1 Jun 2021, Paul Rubin wrote
> (in article <877djdf...@nightsong.com>):
> > Bill Findlay<findl...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:=20
> > > > > The 20KSLOC compiler ran on a 1.5MIPS machine.=20
> > > > Yes, but 1) 20KSLOC per what unit of time,=20
> >=20
> > Ok, but that's maybe 5x slower than Turbo Pascal, which compiled 1000s=
=20
> > of LOC per second on machines of that class.
> Well that is not what emerged in the conversation I reported.=20
> The details are vague now, the gist was that the 1977 compiler=20
> on comparable machines was several times faster that Turbo.=20

May I ask what is meant by "comparable machines"?

Here's why I ask: it can't have been a machine based on the Intel 8088, bec=
ause that wasn't available until 1979. An elderly embedded engineer I know =
says that the CPU used in the PC series, at least the early PC's (8088 & 28=
6) was a terrible CPU. He likes to joke how his <1MHz 6809-based "Trash 80 =
Color Computer" at $500 could run circles around the >4MHz 8088-based IBM a=
t $1500.

So I'm curious if you know the basis of the claim that it was comparable ha=
rdware: clock speed, RAM, etc.

> I see no point in pursuing this further.=20

I can understand, and I apologize if I shouldn't have asked, but I am genui=
nely curious about what was meant. I hope you don't mind.