Re: Announcing JGNAT public version 1.0p

[hugin777@my-deja.com]

In article <8ckthd$p99$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8ckscp$nv7$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>   hugin777@my-deja.com wrote:
> > On my machine (with gcc -O3) Java is 3 times faster !!  (Due
> > to Pentium optimizations, I guess)
>
> No, most likely because you did not use the right options
> for the GNAT run, there are many peformance considerations in
> doing a comparison like this.
>
> For instance, -O3 is usually a bad idea compared to -O2,
> but likely you should unroll loops, probably you should
> suppress checks too if you are comparing with Java which
> has no arithmetic runtime checking.

OK, I tried it with "-O2 -gnatp" - same result.

If someone out there has time to find the right way to compile this, or
find out where I made an error, please educate me.

> You may also be seeing artifacts in overhead, we often find
> that primitive benchmarks like this are badly flawed.

Yes, I admit that.

> Of course the main reason for programing in Ada rather than
> Java is not efficiency, but rather that Ada is a superior
> language to Java in many respects. I would base the choice
> primarily on language requirements, unless efficiency becomes
> known to be a significant issue.

Yes. My point was that the Java Virtual Machines are quite efficient by
now. I didn't intend to say that Java-the-language is better than
Ada-the-language - the only reason for not using Ada on the JVM is that
I haven't downloaded JGNAT yet !

Regards,
   Jens Jakob Jensen.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.