I still have found memories of Pascal (actually Turbo Pascal/Delphi). Not sure about FreePascal, but I remember Turbo Pascal used to have a better memory allocator than C.
In the old days (Windows 3.x) the runtime memory manager has more optimized than the C compiler family. Please note I am speaking about Borland compilers here. That not being the case, I would say that whoever implemented the algorithms in C is not as good as the one who did them in Pascal. Or did not use the proper compiler flags. -- Paulo "bearophile" <bearophileh...@lycos.com> wrote in message news:i9tio7$26d...@digitalmars.com... > Just a lazy note, don't take this too much seriously. > > The Computer Language Benchmarks Game (Computer Shootout) has added some > Clojure implementations, they are not tuned and refined yet (probably > unlike the Free Pascal versions). This is one of the problems ("fasta"), > there are two Free Pascal and two Clojure implementations: > > http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/performance.php?test=fasta&sort=kb > > The Clojure versions currently use about 370_000 KB of RAM to run, their > source code is about 1_600 compressed bytes long, and their run time is > about 30-38 seconds. > > The Free Pascal versions use about 250 KB of RAM, their compressed source > code is about 1_100-1_200 bytes long, and their runtime is 8-12 seconds. > > I have written many small programs in Scheme, but for me that Free Pascal > code is more readable than that Clojure code. Probably Free Pascal lacks > some of the cool new features of Clojure (including a garbage collector), > but I don't see much progress in languages development/hystory here ;-) > > > A question: Here for example the cheapest C program uses 452 KB of RAM. On > average in the Shootout benchmarks Free Pascal uses less or quite less RAM > than the D programs. Do you know why the Free Pascal programs use so > little RAM? > > Bye, > bearophile