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=3.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!cernvax!achille
From: achille@cernvax.UUCP (achille petrilli)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: A farewell to Ada
Message-ID: <1145@cernvax.UUCP>
Date: 22 Nov 89 13:10:08 GMT
References: <14040@grebyn.com>
Reply-To: achille@cernvax.UUCP (achille petrilli)
Organization: CERN European Laboratory for Particle Physics, CH-1211 Geneva, Switzerland
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>From: mlewis: U. of Nebraska at Omaha
> 
>>"...the use of Ada resulted in a 12% increase in productivity over
>>assembly language and 27% over C."  (That is the single most concise
>>condemnation of C I have ever seen... :-)
> 

Could somebody explain me those numbers ? How it comes that Ada is 12%
more productive than assembly and 27% more than C ?
This would mean that assembly is more productive than C ? This seems to me
ridicolously wrong (assembly vs C productivity, I don't have facts to
talk about Ada).

Thanks,

	Achille Petrilli
	Cray & PWS Operations