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: 103376,81cf52699486abe7
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dvdeug@x8b4e53cd. (David Starner)
Subject: Re: Ada95 Strengths/Weaknesses.
Date: 1999/09/28
Message-ID: <7sqq0h$8q61@news.cis.okstate.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 530441601
References: <37EED7B8.245C0054@yukyonline.co.yuky>
 <7smp30$9aa1@news.cis.okstate.edu> <7sp8m9$a6e$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <7spauv$a2g2@news.cis.okstate.edu> <37F0E771.7E394DE4@maths.unine.ch>
Organization: Oklahoma State University
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.7 (UNIX)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-09-28T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <37F0E771.7E394DE4@maths.unine.ch>, Gautier wrote:
>> (...) over twice the size of the original.
>
>> So, since GNAT is junk, do you have another Ada compiler to recommend?
This statement is out of context.
>
>GNAT is not junk, since the relation between source code & .exe size
>is never linear (in any language)!

> Dewar
>> Starner
>> * C & C++ compilers will usually produce smaller and faster
>> code, albeit usually less than an order of magnitude.
>
>Well an order of magnitude would be a catastrophe, but in fact
>the statement is just false. If your Ada compiler produces
>junk code, get another one. In the case of GNAT, the compiler
>uses exactly the same code generator as the GNU C compiler or
>the G++ compiler, so for comparable source code, you get
>identical object code.

He basically said that if the Ada compiler did not produce code
as small as the C++ compiler, then it was junk, and that GNAT
in particular would produce the same code ("identical object
code") as G++. I was merely calling him on that. 

David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org