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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 5b1e799cdb,3ef3e78eacf6f938
X-Google-Attributes: gid5b1e799cdb,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!tudelft.nl!txtfeed1.tudelft.nl!multikabel.net!newsfeed20.multikabel.net!eweka.nl!lightspeed.eweka.nl!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 23:59:11 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.tsoh.plus-bug.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de>
Reply-To: rm.tsoh+bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.programming
Subject: Re: Alternatives to C: ObjectPascal, Eiffel, Ada or Modula-3?
References: <h3sln0$rhm$2@news.eternal-september.org>
 <2009a75f-63e7-485e-9d9f-955e456578ed@v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <2009a75f-63e7-485e-9d9f-955e456578ed@v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <4a6f74b0$0$31864$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Jul 2009 23:59:12 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: c735363d.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=JddN1Ph=OK=RadXUBHgFh3McF=Q^Z^V384Fo<]lROoR1^YC2XCjHcb9nY2g7ILdOo7A:ho7QcPOV3BOZ[oAI9;M3`5RnF@7Q]m1
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:7384 comp.lang.c++:48434
 comp.programming:12076
Date: 2009-07-28T23:59:12+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

fft1976 wrote:

> In summary: everything sucks, when you look close enough.
> 
> OCaml should probably be your #1 choice (about 2x slower than C
> usually, single core). Has its own flaws (Google "Ocaml sucks")
> 
> Ada is also 2x slower, but less suitable for your purposes (verbose,
> less memory safe than OCaml, free compilers produce GPL-only code)

Whatever, free Ada (and C++) compilers made from the FSF's GCC
sources produce non-GPL enforcing executables.