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: 103376,81cf52699486abe7 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Alfred Hilscher Subject: Re: Code size of Ada ? was Re: Ada95 Strengths/Weaknesses. Date: 1999/09/30 Message-ID: <37F349BB.B1F39ECF@icn.siemens.de>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 531088462 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <37EED7B8.245C0054@yukyonline.co.yuky> <7smp30$9aa1@news.cis.okstate.edu> <7sp8m9$a6e$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <37F0D03C.DE4807D4@icn.siemens.de> <7srnb9$2u3$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <1999Sep29.075617.1@eisner> <37F22BB1.F3524D60@icn.siemens.de> <7sts6b$kla$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Accept-Language: en Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Siemens AG Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-09-30T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar wrote: > > In article <37F22BB1.F3524D60@icn.siemens.de>, > Alfred Hilscher wrote: > > Fifteen years ago I already heared from Ada > > vendors that the code _must_ be bigger and slower > > I can't imagine any Ada vendor saying that, it is nonsense. I know that this is nonsens (I worked in compiler development for about ten years). I think it a feeble excuse of some people to argue why their product is not as good as others. > Also, let's be very careful not to obfuscate here, "bigger" > and "slower" have nothing to do with one another. We have been I fully agree with you, nevertheeless I think that size is also a point for discussion. > exclusively talking about *size* of trivial programs here, > absolutely no claim has substantiated about identical programs > showing difference in speed performance! Once again, _I_ have never mentioned that I'm talking _only_ about trivial programs. Here my original text again: Ok, so can you please tell me what I'm doing wrong ? --> All my test (from a simple "Hello world" upto a TCP/IP program with tasks) >-- generate much bigger exe-files (WIN/NT or OS/2) than the C, Pascal or Modula-2 compilers I've tried. I used the default settings. What switches are needed to generate the smallest possible code ? > > because Ada is a > > powerful language. Maybe this is the reason why many people > > prefer "C". > > Well slower would be a concern, the fact that a hello world > program uses 0.2 cents of disk space instead of 0.1 cents > is a dubious concern. That the same argument I've got from M$. "If your system, fixpack, office... does not fitt on your disk - just buy a bigger one". Does that mean I should work harder to get more money for bigger disks, main memory, a faster processor ("oh, you still work with PII with 266 MHz, thats why Word need so much time to open your document"). because others do their work "quick and dirty" (sorry, I _don't_ think you do so). > Well slower would be a concern, the fact that a hello world What do you think about "Load time" ? Isn't it right that a smaller program is faster loaded than a bigger one ? Especially when loading is done via LAN. Regards, Alfred