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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,539c04254abf1b37
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-03-01 09:55:26 PST
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-feeds.jump.net!uunet!dfw.uu.net!ash.uu.net!xyzzy!nntp
From: Jeffrey Carter <jeffrey.carter@boeing.com>
Subject: Re: naval systems
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: e246420.msc.az.boeing.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Message-ID: <3C7FB8C0.240F7A9F@boeing.com>
Sender: nntp@news.boeing.com (Boeing NNTP News Access)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: The Boeing Company
X-Accept-Language: en
References: <3C74E519.3F5349C4@baesystems.com>
 <20020221205157.05542.00000012@mb-cm.news.cs.com>
 <3C763746.CC8B2965@baesystems.com> <a55m56$6mk$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <a57ar5$aai1@news.cis.okstate.edu> <a5djrr$m65$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <a5ghiq$9281@news.cis.okstate.edu>
 <qFRe8.1032$jt4.495646881@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>
 <u3czoxbjm.fsf@telus.net>
 <VuSe8.61199$K14.517462149@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>
 <a5hg80$8a22@news.cis.okstate.edu>
 <4rcf8.1777$I33.586791085@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>
 <a5mqqo$9283@news.cis.oksta
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 17:22:08 GMT
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en]C-CCK-MCD Boeing Kit  (WinNT; U)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20658
Date: 2002-03-01T17:22:08+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

David Starner wrote:
> 
> You seem to be interested in some idealized "fair" compairson. But
> that's not what matters - what matters is how long it takes on real life
> programs.

No, a few seconds difference in compiling large source files does not
matter.

> 
> You keep trying to add a handicap. The interesting question is time from
> submitting the sources to getting a binary; any features is a whole
> different question.

No, the interesting question is the confidence you have in the resulting
executable. Ada is optimized for large systems with multiple modules.
Ada does type checking across separately compiled modules and handles
tasking, exceptions, and generics. To get the same level of confidence
in a large, multiple module system is faster in Ada than C since Ada
automates so much of what must be done manually in C.

If you're only interested in toy, single module systems, or you're
willing to accept the behavior your typos produce, then C is faster.

-- 
Jeffrey Carter