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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!rex!uflorida!mlb.semi.harris.com!trantor.harris-atd.com!x102c.ess.harris.com!simonian
From: simonian@x102c.ess.harris.com (simonian richard 66449)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada Code Efficiency
Message-ID: <5581@trantor.harris-atd.com>
Date: 25 Feb 91 01:40:34 GMT
Sender: news@trantor.harris-atd.com
Reply-To: simonian@x102c.ess.harris.com (simonian richard 66449)
Organization: Harris Corporation GSS, Melbourne, Florida
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Our division is currently in the midst of a heated debate with our
customer on this very issue.  Their counterexample is C.  One of their
objections (which they can't really substantiate; they've just heard
of problems) is the performance of Ada on Unix.  My claim is that the
only thing that Unix has to do with Ada performance is in the realm
of tasking, and even then the only problem is when one tries to use
tasks incorrectly.  In-house benchmarks, and data we've gathered from
other sources, indicate that a good Ada compiler with checks on can
approach 90% the performance of the best C compiler, and with checks
off can meet or beat C.  Note that I said _good_ Ada compiler.  There
are dogs out there...  Our basic statement to our customer will be
that this is a compiler issue, not a language issue.



Richard Simonian
Harris Space Systems Corp.  407-633-3800
simonian@x102c.ess.harris.com
rsimonian@nasamail.nasa.gov