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,d901a50a5adfec3c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: John McCabe <john@assen.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Fortran or Ada?
Date: 1998/09/24
Message-ID: <6ud2i4$sp4@gcsin3.geccs.gecm.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 394315051
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <98092310454016@psavax.pwfl.com> <6uboki$8qh$2@toralf.uib.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Avatar Computer Consultants Limited
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-09-24T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

gisle@lunde.ii.uib.no (Gisle S{lensminde) wrote:

<..snip..>

>An example of this is the aliasing ( &variable ) in C. Because all
>variables can be pointed to, it is much harder to "optimize away" a
>variable. Ada is not as bad as C in this respect, and the strong typing
>should in fact make some optimization tecniques easier,

I read an interesting article in one of Tartan's (now TI I think) 
bulletins on the subject of optimising Ada Vs. C. It explained how Ada 
code could be optimised better because of the strict rules on e.g. 
function side effects, and how the library system (was it in Ada 83?) 
could be used to allow optimisation (e.g. inlining of subroutines etc) 
across compilation units in some cases.

>but the total effort spent to make good Ada compilers is far less then
>the effort of making good Fortran compilers.

Can you quantify that?
-- 
Best Regards
John McCabe

=====================================================================
Not necessarily my company or service providers opinions.
=====================================================================