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=2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site mako.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!mako!jans
From: jans@mako.UUCP (Jan Steinman)
Newsgroups: net.lang.ada
Subject: Re: ada vs C benchmarks
Message-ID: <781@mako.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 22-May-85 12:36:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: mako.781
Posted: Wed May 22 12:36:27 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 24-May-85 03:16:58 EDT
References: <175@anwar.UUCP>
Reply-To: jans@mako.UUCP (Jan Steinman)
Distribution: net.lang
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Summary: 
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <175@anwar.UUCP> jon@anwar.UUCP (John Sissler) writes:
>	does anyone have either the data or ability to produce 
>meaningful benchmarks evaluating ada vs C.

To be fair, turn those checks off when benchmarking Ada against anything,
except "safe" dialects of Pascal, etc.  When comparing a Porche to a Sherman
Tank, are you looking for the fastest and lightest, or the most bomb-proof!
The term "meaningful" as used above, will obviously be weighted by what you
will be measuring.

Ada was designed to be used for applications where exceptions are intolerable.
(You don't want to launch a nuclear weapon because some array overflowed!)
The constraint and allocation checking will cause Ada to measure slower and
larger than languages like C that let you do as you damn well please.
-- 
:::::: Jan Steinman		Box 1000, MS 61-161	(w)503/685-2843 ::::::
:::::: tektronix!tekecs!jans	Wilsonville, OR 97070	(h)503/657-7703 ::::::