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: 103376,3ef3e78eacf6f938 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!f14g2000pre.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Adam Beneschan Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Alternatives to C: ObjectPascal, Eiffel, Ada or Modula-3? Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:36:29 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <7fcdcc81-59de-4592-b1f0-328393bb05d6@f14g2000pre.googlegroups.com> References: <4BA8BA91.4050905@cherrystonesoftware.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1269466589 22483 127.0.0.1 (24 Mar 2010 21:36:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 21:36:29 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: f14g2000pre.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.5.21022; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30618),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9751 Date: 2010-03-24T14:36:29-07:00 List-Id: On Mar 24, 8:07=A0am, Warren wrote: > >> > IOW, stay away from the likes of Java, C#, Pascal. Unless you > >> > have a > >> > very specific reason for going in that direction. Your performance > >> > will suffer. > >> > Jim > > >> I don't think many people would be surprised by these results. > >> After all Java, C# and Pascal (variants) are still largely > >> interpreted =A0languages, even if they use some sort of compiled > >> intermediate code. > > > Pascal is not an interpreted language. =A0One of Pascal's selling point= s > > was that it was one of the first languages that could be parsed by a > > simple recursive descent parser without backtracking. > > P-code implementations were. So all this means is that if we compared the performance of a C compiler with the performance of a p-code implementation of Pascal, we shouldn't be surprised if the Pascal program runs slower. That's pretty obvious, and also pretty pointless. Users who are concerned about performance would want to compare a C compiler with a Pascal compiler that generates native code. Those Pascal compilers are readily available, and there's no inherent reason why they would show worse performance than C code (if you turn off range checking), since Pascal is not an interpreted language (as opposed to, say, Lisp or Perl, which *are* interpreted languages and which would normally not get you anywhere near the performance of a C program). -- Adam