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: 5b1e799cdb,3ef3e78eacf6f938
X-Google-Attributes: gid5b1e799cdb,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 12:27:04 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: 
 comp.lang.scheme,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.functional,comp.lang.c++,comp.programming
Subject: Re: Alternatives to C: ObjectPascal, Eiffel, Ada or Modula-3?
References: 
 <2009a75f-63e7-485e-9d9f-955e456578ed@v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
 <h4qvgd$j4t$1@aioe.org>
 <0bdf3c02-0565-40e2-95cc-c7f5eb546313@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com>
 <7xmy6mzy0q.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>
 <c23ffb32-27f2-4190-a10c-e2ce5cb9359b@p10g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
 <4a714308$0$30229$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <48679a94-4ce4-422e-8656-56bb682b08c0@d15g2000prc.googlegroups.com>
 <4a71c5f0$0$31880$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <8d2fb978-19d3-46fb-baf3-4e82b5a96ac9@d15g2000prc.googlegroups.com>
 <878534cf-fc84-49b8-af29-78446bf6fbd4@i18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
 <097dbb22-3f94-48ca-bb71-d6615497589a@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com>
 <7xr5vxg6o1.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>
In-Reply-To: <7xr5vxg6o1.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <4a72c6f9$0$31874$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Jul 2009 12:27:05 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: ee995ae6.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=HLQXI6[`OCAX36K@\WTHGJMcF=Q^Z^V3H4Fo<]lROoRA^YC2XCjHcbIhDYha2KL_]L;9OJDO8_SKFNSZ1n^B98iJdFKFj42;1BA
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.scheme:6237 comp.lang.ada:7479
 comp.lang.functional:2568 comp.lang.c++:48796 comp.programming:12189
Date: 2009-07-31T12:27:05+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Paul Rubin schrieb:
> Isaac Gouy <igouy2@yahoo.com> writes:
>> His measurements suggest about 1.7s of a 6s difference might be
>> accounted for by slow Text_IO in programs that write 245MB.
>>
>> The benchmarks game measurements are made with stdout redirected to /
>> dev/null - we don't know if that was also the case for the
>> measurements reported by Georg Bauhaus.
> 
> If Text_IO is slow, it could be that it burns a lot of cpu doing
> format conversions, or maybe it uses less buffering than stdio and
> therefore does more system calls.  Redirecting to /dev/null wouldn't
> make any difference to either of those.

I measured with redirection > /dev/null for both programs
and got the (expected) significant difference.

Text_IO is slow by design (being designed around page
control, column control, formatting, etc.  It's
not just moving chunks of char objects.)