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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e5eb8ca5dcea2827
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Don Overheu <dono@ise.canberra.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Ada OO Mechanism
Date: 1999/05/25
Message-ID: <374A00EB.B5AD40B8@ise.canberra.edu.au>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 481731301
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 137.92.97.4
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <7i05aq$rgl$1@news.orbitworld.net>
 <dale-2105990836310001@r1021c-18.ppp.cs.rmit.edu.au>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: 25 May 1999 11:47:24 +1000, 137.92.97.4
Organization: Australian National University
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-05-25T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

I have just caught up with Tucker Taft's response to this thread
querying the speed of Ada95. In his gentle way he suggests that the
pixel display is to blame for any perceived slowness in running a
Mandelbrot example. Perhaps what he was saying was that the problem
may resides in the operating system or the underlying hardware not the
Ada95 program or C. I happen to have Jerry Van Dijk's Mandelbrot example

to run under DOS. It is almost identical to Tucker Taft's example. I
have
recompiled it for Jerry's Adagraph to run under Win95. Here are the
results.

DOS: Screen size 640 by 480, run time 5 secs

Win95: Adagraph Screen size set to 640 by 480, run time 80 secs
       (that is not a misprint!). With pixel plotting removed as
       suggested by Tucker Taft, run time is 5 secs

 Equipment: 300Mh Pentium II Celeron, 65Mb RAM, 4Mb video card and 4Gb
            hard disc
Don Overheu