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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,e7e6e919cef50811 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-03-14 16:53:04 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr17.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3C914684.60C59B59@flash.net> From: Gary Scott Reply-To: scottg@flash.net Organization: Home X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en]C-DIAL (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: comparing gnat/Ada95 and g77 References: <3C908617.C96A6579@Physik.Uni-Magdeburg.DE> <3C909F9D.6D624B86@flash.net> <3c90a2cf$1@news.cadence.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.48.222.192 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr17.news.prodigy.com 1016153522 ST000 64.48.222.192 (Thu, 14 Mar 2002 19:52:02 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 19:52:02 EST X-UserInfo1: Q[R_PJONF[^M@LX_ICCHOPP@FJ^ZTB\MV@BL\QMIWIWTEPIB_NVUAH_[BL[\IRKIANGGJBFNJF_DOLSCENSY^U@FRFUEXR@KFXYDBPWBCDQJA@X_DCBHXR[C@\EOKCJLED_SZ@RMWYXYWE_P@\\GOIW^@SYFFSWHFIXMADO@^[ADPRPETLBJ]RDGENSKQQZN Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 00:52:02 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:21252 Date: 2002-03-15T00:52:02+00:00 List-Id: Hi, Jean-Marc Bourguet wrote: > > Gary Scott writes: > > > Hi, > > Gerald Kasner wrote: > > > > > > Reinert Korsnes schrieb: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > It's the algorithm, not the language that matters. > > > > Actually, the design of the language is quite significant it terms of > > how easy it makes it to design a suitable optimizer. FORTRAN 77 should > > be very easy to optimize so long as you're not using integer pointers > > and/or aliasing. Fortran 95 is only slightly less "optimizable". > > C-based languages are somewhat harder to optimize typically because they > > ENCOURAGE use of pointers and various aliasing tricks. > > That's not the case of Ada. It is perhaps worse than Fortran, but is > far better than C and C++ on this aspect. That's what I would have expected. > > > However, some of the difference between Fortran compilers and other > > languages has something to do with the fact that there are companies > > with 30+ years experience tweaking their compiler (the FORTRAN 77 > > ones are largely mature, not to say that all intrinsics are optimal, > > I keep seeing horrible performance with simple things like circular > > shift). > > Another thing is that raw performance is an important factor in the > Fortran market. True. However, high-level "expressiveness" is dramtically improved by Fortran 95 and I think that many OO buffs will very much like the improvements in the upcoming standard. Still, we just can't seem to get a proper bit string/array type into the standard (or unsigned integers, or ...). If it can't be defined in a 100% portable way, it seems that it won't be considered either. Ada (and PL/1) will probably always be ahead in terms of "features" (simply syntactic sugar in some cases)...unless Ada stops being developed. I doubt whether Fortran will ever incorporate OS dependent features like multi-tasking/threading/processes. It is increasingly supporting parallel processing constructs, though. > > Yours, > > -- > Jean-Marc -- Gary Scott mailto:scottg@flash.net mailto:webmaster@fortranlib.com http://www.fortranlib.com Support the GNU Fortran G95 Project: http://g95.sourceforge.net