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: 103376,52fd60a337c05842 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-14 11:52:20 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!cox.net!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3D0A3B59.4A4B9E04@acm.org> From: Jeffrey Carter X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ada paper critic References: <3D095F70.8090001@telepath.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 18:52:19 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.184.17.74 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net 1024080739 63.184.17.74 (Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:52:19 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:52:19 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:25967 Date: 2002-06-14T18:52:19+00:00 List-Id: Dale Stanbrough wrote: > > Ted Dennison wrote: > > > But if you want real numbers that mean something, get the compilers you > > would use if you were to pick that language, and compare their output > > for the types of code you will be generating. Speed has way more to do > > with the effort your compiler writers put into optimization than with > > the language. > > async abort is one counter example of this. The definition is such > that programs take a hit in efficiency (or so i have read in this > newsgroup). A counter example of what? Of the languages under consideration, which ones have async abort (in addition to Ada)? Of those, which ones have it defined in such a way as to guarantee that implementations in those languages must always be faster than implementations in Ada? > > Just thinking about it, don't Ada's "non constructor" construcor > functions require you to build items on the heap, then copy them > into the variable, rather than bulding them inplace? No. The language allows initialization in place. It does not require it. If it's important to you, then your compiler selection process should take this into account. > > ...and doesn't the fact that the only way to attach information > to an exception is via a string, requiring conversions to/from > the appropriate format just to find out what -really- went wrong? This seems to be an incomplete sentence. If I interpret it correctly, the Ada intent is that the information be carried primarily by the exception name. You should not be using a single exception and differentiating between logical exceptions by the information attached to that exception. Also, exceptions should only be used for exceptional situations, so this does not impact normal processing at all. > > ...and doesn't the representation of holey enumerated types cause > a lot of run time processing? I think you misspelled "holy" :) Only if they're misused. -- Jeff Carter "I wave my private parts at your aunties." Monty Python & the Holy Grail