Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.java,comp.lang.functional,comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!oitnews.harvard.edu!purdue!lerc.nasa.gov!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-200.sprintlink.net!eskimo!scs
From: scs@eskimo.com (Steve Summit)
Subject: Re: Three languages: A performance comparison
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: eskimo.com
Message-ID: <Dvs2Du.KL5@eskimo.com>
Followup-To: comp.lang.misc
Summary: three compilers: a performance comparison
Sender: news@eskimo.com (News User Id)
Organization: schmorganization
References: <4te7rg$287o@piglet.cc.uic.edu>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 17:10:42 GMT
Lines: 8
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.java.programmer:3133 comp.lang.java:74733 comp.lang.functional:7746 comp.lang.misc:26462 comp.lang.smalltalk:41936 comp.lang.c:200403 comp.lang.c++:204798

I haven't followed this thread (I only skimmed the first
article), so pardon me if this point has been made already, but:
the original Subject: line was wrong.  What we started with was
"Three compilers: a performance comparison" (not to mention three
different programs...).

					Steve Summit
					scs@eskimo.com
