comp.lang.ada
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Marin David Condic" <marin.condic.auntie.spam@pacemicro.com>
Subject: Re: Numerical Computation and Ada95
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 10:15:33 -0400
Date: 2001-05-11T14:15:40+00:00	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9dgs6c$t4g$1@nh.pace.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: tdxK6.979$bi2.74527@www.newsranger.com

This just can't be said often enough. Languages (for the most part) aren't
fast or slow. Implementations are fast or slow. And even then, an
implementation may be fast with some things and slow with others. Its just
not possible to say "Ada is slower than Fortran at math" and it is very
damaging to make that claim . (What is it they say about Washington? If
three people repeat a statement there, it becomes a fact? The same thing
seems to apply to newsgroups.)

I like your analogy. Maybe to put this creature to rest we should write a
Fortran interpreter with every conceivable inefficiency built into it on
grounds of ease of implementation, then use this whenever someone brings up
the "Ada is slow" accusation. We can just say "Bring on your Fortran code
and we'll race!" :-)

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Ted Dennison" <dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message
news:tdxK6.979$bi2.74527@www.newsranger.com...
> In article <9dd9tb$1o56$1@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr>, N&J says...
> Again, you *can't* make such a comparison. The best you can do is compare
> *implementations*, which have way more variables than just the source
language.
>
> Suppose I took my super-optimizing RTOS Ada compiler, compared it to the
> (mythical) $50 HappySoft Win95 Fortran compiler for students, and
discovered
> that Fortran was %50 *slower*. What exactly would I have proved? Only that
> HappySoft doesn't care about optimization as much as the authors of my Ada
> compiler.
>
> If you are wondering about *theory*, theoreticly Ada (with the checks
turned
> off) ought to be exactly the same speed for arithmetic and logical
operations as
> C, C++, and Fortran before optimization, and the same speed or *faster*
than any
> of them after optimization, due to the extra info that can be fed to the
> optimizer. But theory won't get you far in the Real World.






  reply	other threads:[~2001-05-11 14:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2001-05-09 19:13 Numerical Computation and Ada95 N&J
2001-05-09 19:42 ` David Starner
2001-05-10 12:23   ` Pat Rogers
2001-05-10 13:51   ` Ted Dennison
2001-05-10 18:21   ` Jeffrey Carter
2001-05-09 19:43 ` Ted Dennison
2001-05-09 21:57 ` James Rogers
2001-05-10  0:41 ` Dr Adrian Wrigley
2001-05-10  5:45   ` N&J
2001-05-10  6:37     ` David Starner
2001-05-10  6:48     ` tmoran
2001-05-10 20:12       ` Gary Scott
2001-05-10 14:04     ` Ted Dennison
2001-05-11 14:15       ` Marin David Condic [this message]
2001-05-10 20:08     ` Gary Scott
2001-05-11 11:58       ` Larry Kilgallen
2001-05-11 11:31         ` Dan Nagle
2001-05-11 14:33         ` Gary Scott
2001-05-11  4:00     ` Lao Xiao Hai
2001-05-11 14:03     ` Marin David Condic
2001-05-10  8:00 ` Martin Dowie
2001-05-10 14:11   ` Ted Dennison
2001-05-10 15:46     ` Martin Dowie
2001-05-10 13:54 ` Martin Stift
2001-05-11  5:59   ` mike
2001-05-10 19:07 ` Laurent Guerby
2001-05-10 20:49 ` N&J
2001-05-11 16:28   ` Jean-Pierre Rosen
2001-05-11 18:28     ` Marin David Condic
2001-05-13 21:42   ` Gautier de Montmollin
2001-05-11  2:02 ` DuckE
replies disabled

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox