Research WebPage; Clean 2

Antonio Eduardo Costa Pereira costa@ufu.br
Tue, 30 Nov 1999 23:44:59 -0200


On 30 Nov 99, at 1:13, rinus plasmeijer wrote:

> > On some other side, I am a Clean programmer and I am impacient to learn
> > about as many and as deep details as possible about the new Clean 2.  Can
> > you provide me with some information about this?
> 
> We still are working on the Clean 2.0 compiler. 
I am curious about an aspect of Clean 2.0. In a Haskell thread, 
someone told that I seem to like small, fast, stinggy compilers.
The observation was derisory. However,  I must concede that I do 
like small, fast, stinggy compilers. To tell you the truth, I like  
small, fast, stingy programs in general. My favorite browser is 
opera (1.2 Mb), my text editor is CryptEdit (600 K, installed), and 
my compiler is Clean 1.3.2.

Is Clean 2.0 small, fast, and stingy, like Clean 1.3.2?
Someone whose name I cannot remember said that Clean is so 
good because it is written in C. Since Clean 2.0 is written in Clean, 
it will be like the other funcional languages: large (20 M+), slow 
(one hour to compile the libraries), heap hungry, large executables 
(2 Mb for Hello world),  poor handling of matrices, slow io, hard to 
install, etc. Is it true? To make a long storty short:

1- How big is the Clean 2.0 compiler?
2- Is it slow? How long does it take to compile the StdEnv?
3- How big is the code for a program to solve a linear system of 
equations using Thorsten's library?
4- How the generated code compares with Clean1.3.2' s? Is it
much slower?

I am not in a hurry to get Clean 2.0, since Clean 1.3.2 works 
so well. Therefore, I think that you should take your time to
make Clean 2.0 at least approach Clean 1.3.2 in efficiency.
In the mean time, you could satisfy our curiosity, informing
us about the general performance of Clean 2.0.

Eduardo Costa