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,cd703a96ca51de6e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news3.google.com!news2.volia.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.tiscali.de!newsfeed.freenet.de!newsfeed.inode.at!news.hispeed.ch!linux2.krischik.com!news From: Martin Krischik Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: 'Base Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 20:08:34 +0100 Organization: Cablecom Newsserver Message-ID: <3009058.VDBX7uInMf@linux1.krischik.com> References: <1134055303.758950.308680@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <2038690.eAzdaEvAON@linux1.krischik.com> <1134160956.403383.29180@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1170126.PvJVGQkA4J@linux1.krischik.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 80-218-112-22.dclient.hispeed.ch Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Trace: news.hispeed.ch 1134495940 19986 80.218.112.22 (13 Dec 2005 17:45:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@hispeed.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 17:45:40 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: KNode/0.9.2 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6869 Date: 2005-12-12T20:08:34+01:00 List-Id: Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen wrote: > My gut reaction was also that Ada will always outperform Java, but I > have found at least one case there this is not true. I recently wrote > a simple test program to transpose a two-dimensional array in Java, > Ada, C++, and C. The purpose was not really to compare languages, but > to see the effects of caching. There were two different alogrithms > used, one a simple nested loop, the other a recursive subdivision with > a nested loop at the lowest level. When the simple nested loop was > tested with large data sets (~ available RAM on the machines) the > diffence between Ada, C, and C++ was insignificant, all being 3-4 > times faster than Java. However, when testing the recursive version, I > found that Java was actually about 10% faster than the other three, > which again came extremely close to each other. Apparently the JIT > compiler had plenty of time to do its work and come up with pretty > optimal code. The other interesting result from the experiment was > that the recursive version was from 3-4 to 20 times faster than the > simple nested loop. Interesting. Martin -- mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net Ada programming at: http://ada.krischik.com