Content deleted Content added
Stevebroshar (talk | contribs) →Performance considerations: Remove fluff |
Stevebroshar (talk | contribs) →Performance considerations: No need to link within the article ... to quotations ... that shouldn't be there |
||
Line 86:
Even though using a control table entails the development cost and deployment size of an interpreter, by separating (encapsulating) the executable coding from the logic, as expressed in the table, it can be more readily targeted to perform its function. This may be experienced in a [[spreadsheet]] application where the underlying spreadsheet software transparently converts complex logical formulae in the most efficient manner it is able, in order to display its results.
The examples below have been chosen partly to illustrate potential performance gains that may not only ''compensate'' significantly for the additional tier of abstraction, but also ''improve'' upon – what otherwise might have been – less efficient, less maintainable and lengthier code. Although the examples given are for a 'low level' assembly language and for the [[C (language)|C language]], it can be seen, in both cases, that very few lines of code are required to implement the control table approach and yet can achieve very significant [[constant time]] performance improvements, reduce repetitive source coding and aid clarity, as compared with [[verbose]] conventional program language constructs
==Examples==
| |||