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: f5d71,304c86061dc69dba X-Google-Attributes: gidf5d71,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,304c86061dc69dba X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,304c86061dc69dba X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,5cb36983754f64da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-02-13 05:11:22 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!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: <402CCCEC.1050100@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> <402A29B4.3010807@noplace.com> <402B763E.4000309@noplace.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 13:11:21 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.165.1.105 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net 1076677881 209.165.1.105 (Fri, 13 Feb 2004 05:11:21 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 05:11:21 PST Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5526 comp.lang.c:22273 comp.lang.c++:19005 comp.lang.java:2906 Date: 2004-02-13T13:11:21+00:00 List-Id: Well, there's *always* exceptional cases and we could sit here all day long dreaming up applications in which math errors matter or math errors don't. We could also find lots of apps in which speed matters. The key factor being that for most of the software that gets built in the world (look at what's on your desktop for appropriate examples) and for most of the processors on which they execute (again, look at the computer on your desk for an appropriate example) the relative efficiency of most compilers/languages is incredibly unimportant. The word processor I'm using to type this could have been built in interpretive Basic functioning at 10x the number of CPU cycles as an equivalent program in some compiled language and I'd probably never see any difference from my keyboard. So rather than talk about language/compiler efficiency its probably more productive for most apps to discuss what *else* a language/compiler offers the developer. (Things like safety/reliability, ease of understanding, developmental leverage, available tools & libraries, etc.) MDC Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen wrote: > > > It could well be. In the case of an interactive raytracer, minor > numerical errors does not really matter if you can get the results at > twice the speed. I imagine you can find other applications with > similar characteristics. But in general, I agree that for the > majority of applications the difference in speed between languages and > compilers is nothing to worry about. > > > -- ====================================================================== 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 ======================================================================