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: 103376,5cb36983754f64da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,304c86061dc69dba X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: f5d71,304c86061dc69dba X-Google-Attributes: gidf5d71,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,304c86061dc69dba X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-02-11 05:10:25 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!crtntx1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!elnk-pas-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!d9c68f36!not-for-mail Message-ID: <402A29B4.3010807@noplace.com> From: Marin David Condic User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 (OEM-HPQ-PRS1C03) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.java Subject: Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language) References: <20040206174017.7E84F4C4114@lovelace.ada-france.org> <54759e7e.0402071124.322ea376@posting.google.com> <2460735.u7KiuvdgQP@linux1.krischik.com> <54759e7e.0402081525.50c7adae@posting.google.com> <54759e7e.0402091826.2847e0c@posting.google.com> <54759e7e.0402101819.95cec1d@posting.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:10:24 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.165.23.177 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net 1076505024 209.165.23.177 (Wed, 11 Feb 2004 05:10:24 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 05:10:24 PST Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5432 comp.lang.c:21851 comp.lang.c++:18669 comp.lang.java:2855 Date: 2004-02-11T13:10:24+00:00 List-Id: Given that it is 100% legal Ada to build a procedure that contains nothing but assembly language instructions, I'd be confident that one could build Ada code that is just as fast as anything produced by any compiler anywhere. So if one wants to get into high-speed shootouts between languages, a ground rule has to be that you're comparing similar code. If an Ada example uses a high level abstraction of a matrix and C can't do that sort of abstraction, then C can't play in that game. If the C example uses some raw chunk of memory and address arithmetic, then the Ada example would need to be coded up in that style as well (and yes, that can be done - but nobody who uses Ada typically *wants* to. :-) Only if you have similarly coded examples can you possibly hope to determine if one compiler is more efficient than another. MDC Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > > There is a problem with that. C does not have arrays. Yet matrices, > you know, are two-dimensional ones. So any comparison here would be > suspicious. A program in C, supposed to multiply matrices would lack -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m o d c @ a m o g c n i c . r "Face it ladies, its not the dress that makes you look fat. Its the FAT that makes you look fat." -- Al Bundy ======================================================================