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: fac41,3ef3e78eacf6f938 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Thread: 103376,3ef3e78eacf6f938 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Thread: 1008e3,3ef3e78eacf6f938 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Thread: 108717,3ef3e78eacf6f938 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gide91fe56a56,gida07f3367d7,gid8d81cdf253,gid5b1e799cdb,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8 Path: g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:41:41 -0500 Message-ID: <4BA8FD54.8020200@cherrystonesoftware.com> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 13:41:40 -0400 From: Jim Balson Reply-To: labrat@cherrystonesoftware.com Organization: Jim Balson - Cherrystone Software Labs User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100205 SeaMonkey/2.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.modula3,comp.lang.pascal,comp.programming To: "J-P. Rosen" Subject: Re: Alternatives to C: ObjectPascal, Eiffel, Ada or Modula-3? References: <4BA8BA91.4050905@cherrystonesoftware.com> <4BA8F677.3090206@adalog.fr> In-Reply-To: <4BA8F677.3090206@adalog.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-E60Jt/p/+YQDApt3Uuy9uw1spDNUp0bhSnOqzI57xC7B49BUQsvjUbNGgldUwkSt2oVWBCa0lEgtbr2!XbVqrTFPXcHAfCxNHmpgMz+dz6hiBsrZ+dHA+iGpBdMze+j8khnH+PqrooorET3FP+o= X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.eiffel:571 comp.lang.ada:10674 comp.lang.modula3:140 comp.programming:16448 Date: 2010-03-23T13:41:40-04:00 List-Id: J-P. Rosen wrote: > balson a écrit : >> IOW, stay away from the likes of Java, C#, Pascal. Unless you have a >> very specific reason for going in that direction. Your performance will >> suffer. >> > I don't see why you put Pascal in the same basket. Pascal is not part of > the benchmark, therefore there is no evidence for what you say, and > Pascal does not require an interpreter or semi-interpreter. > I included Pascal because once you get up into languages that do bounds checking, performance will degrade. Pascal is one of those languages that does bounds checking. It comes down to this: a) Either the programmer writes code to not exceed array bounds, or b) Use a language that does it for you. The choice of (a) will cost you a little bit of time developing. The choice of (b) is going to cost you in performance when done. If we were to add another language to our benchmarks, Pascal would be the logical choice. And we may do it at some point in the future. We're certainly going to add many more algorithms to the testing as time permits. Jim