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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,447bd1cf7a88c198 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-01-09 02:33:06 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!news.iac.net!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail From: n_brunot@my-deja.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Do we need "Mission-Critical" software? Was: What to Do? Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 10:20:17 GMT Organization: Deja.com Message-ID: <93eoku$cm2$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <3A4F5A4A.9ABA2C4F@chicagonet.net> <3A4F759E.A7D63F3F@netwood.net> <3A50ABDF.3A8F6C0D@acm.org> <92qdnn$jfg$1@news.huji.ac.il> <3A50C371.8B7B871@home.com> <3A51EC04.91353CE7@uol.com.br> <3A529C97.2CA4777F@home.com> <3A53CB9E.EA7CF86C@uol.com.br> <3A5466DE.811D43A5@acm.org> <932aol$ikc$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <932mi6$r2k$1@trog.dera.gov.uk> <9343b1$3g5$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <934iuf$eqv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <934kt2$gbh$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <937jvn$si3$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93bv37$43b$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93e2d1$spv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.27.42.36 X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Jan 09 10:20:17 2001 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; fr-FR; m18) Gecko/20001106 Netscape6/6.0 X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x73.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 212.27.42.36 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDn_brunot Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:3800 Date: 2001-01-09T10:20:17+00:00 List-Id: In article <93e2d1$spv$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Robert Dewar wrote: > By the way, in a recent benchmark done by one of our customers > GNAT outran a competitive compiler on Whetstones by a factor > of 2 (so I guess people's milage varies when it comes to GNAT > fpt performance). I often saw benchmarks proving one thing, while others proved the opposite. Global performance and efficiency of a software goes far beyond than what's usually done in a benchmark. It's amazing to see how someone can prove a compiler extremely efficient for a specific task, and the opinion of the final user about the application .... > comparison. In the case of Java we are talking about a > *language* feature that makes efficient fpt impossible. I'm confident in Java to correct that, if users find it necessary, without listening to you even if you claim it's impossible :-) > Of the million+ lines of commercial code I have delivered in > the last 20 years on projects written just by me, only a small > fraction was in Ada, so yes, I am familiar with other languages > and what goes on in large scale software projects in all sorts > of environments. I have more lines than that on the cvs extraction of my working PC :-) And that's only Ada, and represents obsolutely nothing in software industry. Language knowledge, one single people life code, and even a dozen of large scale projects don't necessarely mean that you are not figuring software industry to be what you would like, and not what it really is. >(by the way, you have garbled the idiom > here, it is "exceptions prove the rule", and the word prove > here means "test" not "proof" as in mathematics. I trust you for the idiom :-) But, it was litteral translation from french, where (to my knowledge, may be I'm wrong) it means that when you find a very small number of exceptions to a rule, widely true otherwise, you'd better trust the rule is most cases, rather than thinking you met an exception each time rule goes against your convinctions. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/