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!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.mind.de!bolzen.all.de!newsfeed.ision.net!newsfeed2.easynews.net!ision!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: C++0x and Threads - a poor relation to Ada's tasking model?
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <7q2385104kihs87d79p8kfphuoki6r01vq@4ax.com>
 <7961a91c-a5af-40e2-bbc0-6bf69a98176d@z31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
 	<gnc585975lmscgmvat9avedckgs3du6pin@4ax.com>
 <362f621e-a01c-4772-ba02-4e18e9962188@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>
 	<b6t5855cc2epg9h3s1qb9ulm96bp3pfphk@4ax.com>
 <128d63da-361f-4e33-be5e-e06bdc71e39f@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
 	<wcc8whovk76.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <6d23274b-d649-4a83-a6f1-6d1e9c4c3998@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
 	<h5vq9u$i0g$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <df70d2ce-e773-4ba8-b800-a50fec63a6fc@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
 <4A83D107.2020407@obry.net> <196q25f7ntf6a$.tj10ulon3mmt.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4A83F9C2.3000700@obry.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:28:43 +0200
Message-ID: <1376nmezwawim.1mqgiaglsrvwe.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Aug 2009 14:28:43 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 4967dfce.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=@]eBDW1EgEc]BlmkiiU@BiMcF=Q^Z^V3h4Fo<]lROoRa^YC2XCjHcbi6GJc@X3K_\nDNcfSJ;bb[eFCTGGVUmh?dLK[5LiR>kgbMA8k@^k]7aj
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:7728
Date: 2009-08-13T14:28:43+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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.

>> properly defined allows a deeper optimization and safer programming.
> 
> Well checks are still taking some time. Note that I was speaking of 
> applications built with checks on.

To continue the argument above:

1. These checks must be there, else the program is wrong
2. The language is wrong not allowing programmer to design these checks
static [*]

When it is neither 1 nor 2, then it is something which we can prove to be
OK in our program, while the compiler cannot. Is a normal programmer that
smart?

-----------
* Example in Ada. If you wanted to iterate two arrays at once, you could
not eliminate index checks of one of them:

   for I in A'Range loop
      ... A (I) + B (I + B'First - A'First) ...
                             -- No way to eliminate B index check
   end loop;

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de