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: 103376,2cdc6c2ee911fe77 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Gautier Subject: Re: Ada vs. C++ Date: 2000/02/14 Message-ID: <38A87152.1D38C3F9@maths.unine.ch>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 585878699 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <38A37C97.9E181025@interact.net.au> <38A7EE61.353F9ECF@edf.fr> X-Accept-Language: en Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: 14 Feb 2000 21:17:54 +0100, mac13-32.unine.ch MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-02-14T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: (...) > See is due to the fact that Ada gives a more abstract and precise > definition of what as to be done, compared to C who tend to stay at a > lower level. Therefore although it is easier to write a simple C > compiler, when it turns to optimization, Ada is much better. > > Borland who made both C and Pascal compilers said the same. Pascal can > be seen as an "ancestor" of Ada, because it's syntax is quite close. Interesting... since Borland didn't provide optimisation on their Pascal compilers (maybe until some recent version of Delphi ?). Another remark: Pascal (at least the Borland ones...) allows transtyping *implicitely* (unlike Ada) all integer types between 8,16,32 bits! This produces horrible machine code that permanently zeroes an upper byte somewhere, although the programmer doesn't guess anything... Seen plenty of such useless cases with Pascal->Ada translations. -- Gautier _____\\________________\_______\_________ http://members.xoom.com/gdemont/gsoft.htm