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: 5b1e799cdb,3ef3e78eacf6f938 X-Google-Attributes: gid5b1e799cdb,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.octanews.net!indigo.octanews.net!auth.brown.octanews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Sender: phr2009-nospam@ruckus.brouhaha.com From: Paul Rubin Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.functional,comp.lang.c++,comp.programming Subject: Re: Alternatives to C: ObjectPascal, Eiffel, Ada or Modula-3? References: <2009a75f-63e7-485e-9d9f-955e456578ed@v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <0bdf3c02-0565-40e2-95cc-c7f5eb546313@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com> <7xmy6mzy0q.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> Date: 29 Jul 2009 20:53:30 -0700 Message-ID: <7xtz0u3jyd.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> Organization: Nightsong/Fort GNOX User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Jul 2009 22:53:21 CDT X-Complaints-To: abuse@octanews.net X-Original-Bytes: 1536 Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.scheme:6191 comp.lang.ada:7435 comp.lang.functional:2541 comp.lang.c++:48596 comp.programming:12146 Date: 2009-07-29T22:53:21-05:00 List-Id: fft1976 writes: > This is a hypotheses you are entertaining, right? Yes. > Or did you notice anything "suboptimal" in the Ada code? I haven't looked at the code. I do notice from the shootout that in some examples, the Ada code is significantly smaller both code size and memory consumption than the C++ code, but the Ada code is slower. Since Ada and C/C++ have pretty similar semantics, it suggests there was a time/memory tradeoff that was resolved in different ways between the programmers.