From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 2002:a24:4a8b:: with SMTP id k133mr1049588itb.98.1559843297991;
        Thu, 06 Jun 2019 10:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:aca:5a05:: with SMTP id o5mr839936oib.37.1559843297720;
 Thu, 06 Jun 2019 10:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.gegeweb.eu!gegeweb.org!usenet-fr.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.166.215.MISMATCH!s188no70377itb.0!news-out.google.com!l135ni198itc.0!nntp.google.com!s188no70376itb.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2019 10:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55b14350-e255-406c-ab11-b824da77995b@googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=208.114.128.53;
 posting-account=MRPdDAoAAADUJmZVjnYaoafXFMadSeY1
NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.114.128.53
References: <55b14350-e255-406c-ab11-b824da77995b@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <01dfb261-56b9-4bbb-aad9-e0099071f559@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Toy computational "benchmark" in Ada (new blog post)
From: Olivier Henley <olivier.henley@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2019 17:48:17 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:56502
Date: 2019-06-06T10:48:17-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 7:05:02 AM UTC-4, David Trudgett wrote:
> For what it's worth, you may exercise your laughing gear perusing my toy example just for fun at: 
> 
> http://www.eclecticse.com.au/2019/06/procedural-map-reduce-and-parallelism.html
> 
> Any tips or suggestions from Ada old hands out there for other ideas to try would be gratefully considered! :-)
> 
> Enjoy!

Interesting but did you run the C version on your machine alongside your Ada version?

In the text, from what I understand, you are comparing the Ada computation time to the reported OP C performance (17ms) and I fail to understand how the comparison can be valid if performed on different machines?   

Note: I tried to find the original C code but in vain and from my rapid reading of your blog post you do not mention having run that C code yourself.

Thank you,

Olivier