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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: meaningfully/compellingly "advertising" Ada on StackOverflow
Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 12:17:50 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <87wow1fc0x.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <6420bab2-0aef-4d36-b978-525e4de45e7e@googlegroups.com>
	<aed23075-1271-4e2c-b5f2-8da705e1a73e@googlegroups.com>
	<a86dc533-a8f5-4d1c-9b4c-11d7963c6d15@googlegroups.com>
	<pdkrvk$n53$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
	<1559505943.548291689.457576.laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org>
	<87fu2psqpj.fsf@nightsong.com>
	<300fd624-72a0-4171-90dc-49ad5df4fa21@googlegroups.com>
	<87bmddshod.fsf@nightsong.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: h2725194.stratoserver.net;
 posting-host="22d1142f392d793b7d90bc4f76c81307";
	logging-data="23341"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+b5e/8DveQQ82dni2TFjCr4iApkdaBAWg="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LDRYCLJPqMvjzswtjdgeR0b15sI=
	sha1:0JWHY9dxyenZhh3f18ZSmpL05Zg=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.b87331c61015f7b79ef4.20180518121750BST.87wow1fc0x.fsf@bsb.me.uk
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:52427
Date: 2018-05-18T12:17:50+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> writes:

> Lucretia <laguest9000@googlemail.com> writes:
>> You don't get the point I made. That "benchmark" is to see how fast
>> different languages go using the same algorithm, without using any
>> safety features. If you hobble Ada by including them, you will make
>> people think it's really slow. It's not about the safety features. Do
>> you get it now?
>
> No.  The Python and Haskell programs are slow because Python and Haskell
> also have safety features.  The data signals the right conclusion: C is
> dangerous and fast, while Python and Haskell are safe and slow.  A
> completely standard cost-benefit tradeoff.  As a user I appreciate being
> presented with this info so I can make an informed choice.

Small point...  There's no C version, only a C++ version.  I just made a
C version and it seems to take about %85 the time of the C++ one.

Even more off-topic point: I think all the programs would be faster if
they did a conventional lookup, but they all use split and merge to
find matching values.  Is there an algorithmic reason for this?

<snip>
> I like Dan'l Miller's suggestion of having two Ada benchmarks, giving
> both the safe and unsafe measurements.  Then people can decide what's
> relevant to their own requirements.

Some of the other languages are represented with multiple versions,
presumably for similar reasons.

-- 
Ben.