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,FREEMAIL_FROM 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,UTF8 Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!m3g2000pri.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Isaac Gouy 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? Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:25:32 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <8136829b-6b46-48c3-8b64-8e557a02d83a@m3g2000pri.googlegroups.com> References: <2009a75f-63e7-485e-9d9f-955e456578ed@v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <0bdf3c02-0565-40e2-95cc-c7f5eb546313@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com> <7xmy6mzy0q.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <4a714308$0$30229$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 76.102.15.45 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1248971132 14953 127.0.0.1 (30 Jul 2009 16:25:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:25:32 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: m3g2000pri.googlegroups.com; posting-host=76.102.15.45; posting-account=8hLxJgkAAAAL8xHLJ0ljKM_bUSuq3O6V User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.0.12) Gecko/2009070811 Ubuntu/9.04 (jaunty) Firefox/3.0.12,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.scheme:6213 comp.lang.ada:7451 comp.lang.functional:2557 comp.lang.c++:48679 comp.programming:12163 Date: 2009-07-30T09:25:32-07:00 List-Id: Georg Bauhaus wrote: > fft1976 wrote: > > On Jul 29, 7:48 pm, Paul Rubin wrote: > >> fft1976 writes: > >>>> Where'd you get that idea? > >>> http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/benchmark.php?test=3Dall=E2=8C= =A9=3Dgna... > >> Given that Ada is such a verbose language, the generally smaller > >> source sizes of the Ada programs suggests that they weren't optimized > >> very carefully. I know that some C, Java, and functional language > >> users treat the shootouts fairly competitively and tune their code > >> carefully, but I don't know if the Ada users are the same way. Ada > >> is unfortunately kind of a niche language these days. > > > > This is a hypotheses you are entertaining, right? Or did you notice > > anything "suboptimal" in the Ada code? > > It is true that Ada programs have been ranking lower at the > Shootout than they did before, and the (two) reasons > are interesting. > Some time ago, many algorithms were supposed to use just the > language, and sequential programs, with few excceptions. > Now with Multicore CPUs everywhere, many Shootout programmers > have started to include threading libraries and thus > perform different algorithms, having their programs perform > devide and conquer and such. > > (One might wonder whether or not having concurrency support > built into the language will become the great new thing. :-) > > Last time I looked, the Ada programs had not been > updated to use Ada's concurrent types to express the same > devide and conquer strategy, which seems to be allowed now... > The reported speedups for some C versions of the programs > can be used as an estimate of a statistical correction > to the (still sequential) Ada performance. > This then will explain why a 2x slowdown of Ada, > when compared to C, is not a realistic estimate. Authoritative and in this case wrong. After the benchmarks game caught up with quad-core hardware there were different sets of measurements - measurements of programs allowed to use all the cores, and measurements of programs forced onto a single core. That URL linked to measurements of programs forced onto a single core. > A second reason why Ada has dropped at the Shootout is > that the systems they use have older interim (from the Ada > point of view) GCCs that are known to be broken. > This makes some perfectly normal Ada programs fail there. > As the code is available and did not fail when it was > first ranked, and does not fail when used with an apt > compiler like GCC 4.3.x, the Shootout is just showing its > information potential ;-) Authoritative and seemingly wrong again. GNAT 4.3.3 http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/benchmark.php?test=3Dall&lang=3Dgnat&= box=3D1#about