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-Thread: a07f3367d7,4215feeab2a8154a
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!193.252.117.184.MISMATCH!news.wanadoo.fr!news.wanadoo.fr!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <4A83F9C2.3000700@obry.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:32:18 +0200
From: Pascal Obry <pascal@obry.net>
Organization: Home - http://www.obry.net
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; fr-FR;
 rv:1.8.1.22) Gecko/20090605 Thunderbird/2.0.0.22 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Subject: Re: C++0x and Threads - a poor relation to Ada's tasking model?
References: <7q2385104kihs87d79p8kfphuoki6r01vq@4ax.com>
 <7961a91c-a5af-40e2-bbc0-6bf69a98176d@z31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
 	<gnc585975lmscgmvat9avedckgs3du6pin@4ax.com>
 <362f621e-a01c-4772-ba02-4e18e9962188@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>
 	<b6t5855cc2epg9h3s1qb9ulm96bp3pfphk@4ax.com>
 <128d63da-361f-4e33-be5e-e06bdc71e39f@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
 	<wcc8whovk76.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <6d23274b-d649-4a83-a6f1-6d1e9c4c3998@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
 	<h5vq9u$i0g$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <df70d2ce-e773-4ba8-b800-a50fec63a6fc@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
 <4A83D107.2020407@obry.net> <196q25f7ntf6a$.tj10ulon3mmt.dlg@40tude.net>
In-Reply-To: <196q25f7ntf6a$.tj10ulon3mmt.dlg@40tude.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Aug 2009 13:32:05 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.124.192.199
X-Trace: 1250163125 news.orange.fr 17761 82.124.192.199:8985
X-Complaints-To: abuse@orange.fr
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:7724
Date: 2009-08-13T13:32:05+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Dmitry,

> Don't you wonder why should it be this way? Shouldn't safer code be more
> efficient?

Should... maybe! My experiences is often that Ada is a *bit* slower. I 
have also some experiences where a concurrent and distributed 
application in Ada was a bit faster than a C++ one using OpenMP + MPI.

> I prefer to think that Ada has an emphasis on *semantics*, which, when

Agreed.

> properly defined allows a deeper optimization and safer programming.

Well checks are still taking some time. Note that I was speaking of 
applications built with checks on.

> Ada is designed to be more friendly...

Agreed.

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|    http://www.obry.net  -  http://v2p.fr.eu.org
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver keys.gnupg.net --recv-key F949BD3B