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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,f2aa0ddde84d1b0a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!212.101.4.254.MISMATCH!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.hanau.net!noris.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GNAT verses A# for soft-realtime system
From: Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de>
In-Reply-To: <4618F24B.70303@obry.net>
References: <4uudnaJ7BJK8g4XbnZ2dnUVZ_t-mnZ2d@comcast.com>
	 <cw3lptya4i66$.1osehyxuh7vi3.dlg@40tude.net>  <4618F24B.70303@obry.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Organization: #
Message-ID: <1176134883.5608.58.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.1 
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 18:08:04 +0200
NNTP-Posting-Date: 09 Apr 2007 17:06:38 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 44d170ab.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=Fh@c]>^eS>VV0Pe9PRnbJ\McF=Q^Z^V3X4Fo<]lROoRQFl8W>\BH3YRgAH8R8U>S\_A:ho7QcPOVSed5V2gRG2;VLQC6d\@nUe^
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14845
Date: 2007-04-09T17:06:38+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Sun, 2007-04-08 at 15:46 +0200, Pascal Obry wrote:
> Dmitry A. Kazakov a =C3=A9crit :
> > I am sceptical about NET target. Theoretically using Ada should make yo=
u
> > independent on whether it be A# or not, but practically I doubt that A#
> > scales, especially for image processing. BTW, Ada is great for image
>=20
> Don't know what you have in mind here, but remember on the .Net platform
> *nothing* is interpreted. That is, only natively compiled code is run on
> .Net, so performance wise there is no speed penalty

Of course, anything incurred by translating from MSIL to native
code may improve or degrade performance when compared to code
which is directly optimized from source to target architecture
taking advantage of more information available at the source level
(if any).

> (this is quite
> different than the JVM, in this regard I think Microsoft did a better job=
).

You can measure a JIT compiler's worth by running a JVM program in
a loop and watch the first 200 runs or so. Quite impressive.