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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,4215feeab2a8154a X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!backlog2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.bt.com!news.bt.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 20:10:51 -0500 From: Brian Drummond Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: C++0x and Threads - a poor relation to Ada's tasking model? Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 02:15:38 +0100 Reply-To: brian@shapes.demon.co.uk Message-ID: <0ce985ll20ngk2p2bclhgn5867jkrfp9f5@4ax.com> References: <128d63da-361f-4e33-be5e-e06bdc71e39f@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com> <6d23274b-d649-4a83-a6f1-6d1e9c4c3998@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com> <4A83D107.2020407@obry.net> <196q25f7ntf6a$.tj10ulon3mmt.dlg@40tude.net> <4A83F9C2.3000700@obry.net> <1376nmezwawim.1mqgiaglsrvwe.dlg@40tude.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-AuthenticatedUsername: NoAuthUser X-Trace: sv3-CUHHu/wa5HbW/yts8yZXk68mTBhZw2wrCSSJOhSfKKS3HB1eBznMkqvPLHuNVqNyVYf7Xww3e0a6hh3!9e/9bLnOzGJ+2eviqbIrBL2YksoONwnV0xIhdklaGPyHNEx4Dt9fuq+Sghf+9vRrwsNob3vaPvjZ!c7gf X-Complaints-To: abuse@btinternet.com X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@btinternet.com X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.39 X-Original-Bytes: 2589 Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:7749 Date: 2009-08-14T02:15:38+01:00 List-Id: On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:28:43 +0200, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote: >On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:32:18 +0200, Pascal Obry wrote: > >>> Don't you wonder why should it be this way? Shouldn't safer code be more >>> efficient? >> >> Should... maybe! My experiences is often that Ada is a *bit* slower. I >> have also some experiences where a concurrent and distributed >> application in Ada was a bit faster than a C++ one using OpenMP + MPI. > >In that case there must be something suboptimal in the language design. > >I would also argue that where C++ is faster, the corresponding C++ code is >probably wrong, which a full coverage test would show. The trick is, that >nobody tests the code. It's also likely that there are two orders of magnitude more eyes on the C++ compiler's performance, and that must count for something. Just look at the progress a few pairs of eyes can make in a few days on one Ada benchmark. - Brian