Newsgroups: comp.sys.transputer
From: pawlak@zeubac.desy.de (Jerzy Michal Pawlak)
Subject: Re: Life, the universe, Occam and parallel C
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY
Date: 8 Jun 1994 18:43:55 GMT
Message-ID: <2t53hb$3pf@dscomsa.desy.de>


In article <CqtGKz.C80@ccg.upv.es>, Jesus Peinado <jpeinado@dsic.upv.es> writes:
>In article <1993Dec8.052131.21519@bnr.ca> Gene Clendon, clendon@bnr.ca
>writes:
>>transputers, would you use parallel C, or Occam, considering that you
>had...
>
>I use C because it easy to program than OCCAm. However, here in my
>department
>we designed several same systems using OCCAM and C.and I can tell you
>that Occam
>is more efficient.

As long as you assume programming=coding yes, C is easier. But if programming
= coding+testing+debugging then OCCAM might be a winner, because of much
stricter definition (less mistakes, blunders etc pass the compiler). 
But it probably depends largely on the specific program you want to write. 
And yes, OCCAM is generally more efficient

(worth of the above was estimated to 2 Pf...)
-- 
Michal (pawlak@zeubac.desy.de)

