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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,63bbc3281a2f80ea X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: rlk@rational.com (Bob Kitzberger) Subject: Re: Ada vs. C Date: 1996/08/10 Message-ID: <4uiqu0$e33@rational.rational.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 173416465 references: <3208F2BA.E34@freenet.scri.fsu.edu> <320B693F.4ACA@freenet.scri.fsu.edu> organization: Rational Software Corporation newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-08-10T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: The Quelisher (kendal@freenet.scri.fsu.edu) wrote: : Robert Dewar wrote: : > That's bogus, comparable programs in Ada and C will generate : > executables of the same size, at least using a technology like GNAT. [Ada vs. C hello world example] : When I compiled each of the above here are the file sizes that resulted: : C ----> 24,576 : Ada --> 253,952 But these aren't real-world programs. You'll probably discover that much of the Ada overhead is fixed -- runtime requirements for tasking (and you may be able to remove much of that if you don't use tasking). : I understand though that there is a tradeoff between file size and : functionability of a program, but let's take PC's for example. Who wants : to run a 6 mb program written in Ada when a 2mb program written in C : does the same thing? Of course no one wants to. But basing observations on "hello world" is silly. I suspect that if you use the same underlying back-end technology, the size of the Ada vs. C programs will increase at roughly the same rate, once you ignore the fixed-size runtime costs. -- Bob Kitzberger Rational Software Corporation rlk@rational.com http://www.rational.com http://www.rational.com/pst/products/testmate.html