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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,97482af7429a6a62
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan)
Subject: Re: Language Efficiency
Date: 1995/04/19
Message-ID: <D7Ao9r.Ho6@irvine.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 101283236
sender: usenet@irvine.com (News Administration)
references: <3m9o9q$igf@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov>
 <D6ss6z.Gvw@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> <dewar.797512974@gnat>
organization: Irvine Compiler Corp., Irvine, California, USA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1995-04-19T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <dewar.797512974@gnat> dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

> Ross Driedger says:
> 
> "All I need to do is load my Smalltalk enviroment, type "2 + 2" in the
> transcript and invoke the 'Show It' command.  Three seconds later, I get
> an answer."
> 
> That is completely irrelevant, what you see in a particular implementation
> of a particular language does not necessarily have anything whatsoever to
> do with the languages involved.
> 
> TO make the argument that there is some inherent difference in language
> efficiency, you have to give very specific examples of semantic features
> and argue that it is impossible to implement comparable features with
> comparable efficiency. What any particular implementations happen to do
> is not part of the discussion.

In a slightly later article, Robert writes:
 
> With regard to the "unexpected penalty" for (others => (others => 0)),
> aggregates certainly generate pretty horrible code in Ada. . . .
                                                     ^^^^^^
not

> aggregates certainly generate pretty horrible code in some
> particular implementations of Ada. . . .

Hmmmmmm . . .

                                -- Adam