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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.224.137.67 with SMTP id v3mr5693986qat.0.1380724157942;
 Wed, 02 Oct 2013 07:29:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.50.8.42 with SMTP id o10mr107571iga.3.1380724157703; Wed, 02
 Oct 2013 07:29:17 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 border1.nntp.ams3.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams3.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams2.giganews.com!border4.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!212.27.60.9.MISMATCH!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!news-out.readnews.com!news-xxxfer.readnews.com!209.85.216.87.MISMATCH!a6no936473qak.0!news-out.google.com!9ni1110qaf.0!nntp.google.com!a6no936470qak.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 07:29:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <8e7c5461-4383-4202-9724-5bd510beb7ac@googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=2607:fe50:0:8514:f66d:4ff:fed0:32ee;
 posting-account=2ZF-4AoAAACjyRiHABaMHHY6KlpUj2jN
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2607:fe50:0:8514:f66d:4ff:fed0:32ee
References: <8aca502c-bba8-4af5-9192-459c15fe048b@googlegroups.com>
 <8e7c5461-4383-4202-9724-5bd510beb7ac@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <338f4152-93de-4ba8-afe2-3b6668c70f30@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Optimizing Ada
From: kennethesills@gmail.com
Injection-Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 14:29:17 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Original-Bytes: 1939
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:183572
Date: 2013-10-02T07:29:17-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> The Ada code is perfect (only the body looks indented only 2 spaces instead of 3, first level).
Ah, an unfortunate copy/paste issue.

> How do the performances *scale*? Have you tried say 1, 10... 1_000_000 words?
Yes, sir. It's pretty consistent (stays within an ~300ns range) when I tested ranging from 10_000 to 1_000_000 iterations.