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: 103376,6609c40f81b32989 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 18:29:37 +0200 From: Georg Bauhaus User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Macintosh/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Why is Ada considered "too specialized" for scientific use References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <4bbe0471$0$7652$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> Organization: Arcor NNTP-Posting-Date: 08 Apr 2010 18:29:37 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: e1f9d7eb.newsspool1.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=4L;RH6kLF4N02Sh8E_NfIAic==]BZ:afN4Fo<]lROoRA<`=YMgDjhgB`BDJLh>_cHTX3jMf?j Vincent LAFAGE schrieb: > Given that complex number are not hard-embedded in Ada, they should pay > the abstraction price, but they keep the price low. An example of Ada's complex type (a record) being less efficient than something else is seen in the following Mandelbrot programs; the difference between the two Ada entries is in part caused by one of them using type Complex, http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/performance.php?test=mandelbrot I guess that (some) computations involving object of type Complex will be faster when compilers generate SSE instructions for complex arithmetic.