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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,632dbd0caea19836 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Maciej Sobczak Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: System calls - GNAT library vs. direct bindings Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 06:01:09 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <1180702869.223008.149140@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com> References: <1180623520.303981.191090@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 137.138.37.241 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1180702869 13758 127.0.0.1 (1 Jun 2007 13:01:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 13:01:09 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.10) Gecko/20070228 Red Hat/1.5.0.10-0.1.slc3 Firefox/1.5.0.10,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com; posting-host=137.138.37.241; posting-account=Ch8E9Q0AAAA7lJxCsphg7hBNIsMsP4AE Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16023 Date: 2007-06-01T06:01:09-07:00 List-Id: On 1 Cze, 08:59, a...@anon.org (anon) wrote: > One factor is that Ada was designed for portability there if you do not care > about portability then do not use Ada! I don't understand. Does it mean that Ada is such a crap that if portability is not an issue than the only things that remain in the language are disadvantages? What other language would you recommend then? > Wrappers defeat the purpose of use Ada, so do not use them! Most libraries for Ada are wrappers for something. > Performance -- use the OS's core language. Why should that be any different? >>From the point of view of client application, OS is just API. With some calling convention. It doesn't really matter what is a "core language" there, it might be even assembler. The only thing that *does* matter is that to achieve ultimate performance with OS' services, one usually needs direct access to this API. > But as the > performance of the code goes up the maintainability starts to drop. You must be coming from some strange place. > This is due to the fact that performance alorithms are normally tied to > the hardware and as hardware is update the alorithms may need to be > rewritten just to maintain current performance levels which increases > the maintainability cost. Yes. You are coming from some strange place. -- Maciej Sobczak http://www.msobczak.com/