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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,90c3c79963d78580 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-05-11 07:25:24 PST Path: archiver1.sj.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!skynet.be!isdnet!psinet-france!psiuk-f4!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Numerical Computation and Ada95 Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 10:15:33 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9dgs6c$t4g$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <9dc4sh$ru5$1@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr> <3AF9E3BF.D6D73BEA@linuxchip.demon.co.uk> <9dd9tb$1o56$1@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr> NNTP-Posting-Host: 136.170.200.133 X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 989590539 29840 136.170.200.133 (11 May 2001 14:15:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 May 2001 14:15:40 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.sj.google.com comp.lang.ada:7393 Date: 2001-05-11T14:15:40+00:00 List-Id: This just can't be said often enough. Languages (for the most part) aren't fast or slow. Implementations are fast or slow. And even then, an implementation may be fast with some things and slow with others. Its just not possible to say "Ada is slower than Fortran at math" and it is very damaging to make that claim . (What is it they say about Washington? If three people repeat a statement there, it becomes a fact? The same thing seems to apply to newsgroups.) I like your analogy. Maybe to put this creature to rest we should write a Fortran interpreter with every conceivable inefficiency built into it on grounds of ease of implementation, then use this whenever someone brings up the "Ada is slow" accusation. We can just say "Bring on your Fortran code and we'll race!" :-) MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Ted Dennison" wrote in message news:tdxK6.979$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.