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,dab7d920e4340f12 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,dab7d920e4340f12 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: C is 'better' than Ada because... Date: 1996/08/16 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 174860657 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: <31daad10.57288085@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov> organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c Date: 1996-08-16T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <3212F127.41C67EA6@mailgw.sanders.lockheed.com> Mike Roske writes: > However, the language does not readily provide for some constructs I > have found very useful, such as pointers to subprograms, and assigning a > pointer to an existing object. (yes, both can be done, but not as > easily as in C). Yes, this is cake in Ada95, but not something you typically want anyway (especially since you have polymorphic dispatch). > The added checking that Ada compilers provide before and after each > subprogram call and assignment is unnecessary in many cases. I don't think I know of an Ada compiler (even some of the worst old Ada83 ones) that didn't allow globally supressing checks at invocation. And certainly, there was always pragma supress. So this is irrelevant. Don't want the checks? Well, turn them off. > Admittedly, this is more of an implementation issue. There must be some > Ada compilers that optimize well, but I haven't yet had the pleasure > of using them. Sure, they are out there. Some do much better than any C compiler in their target areas. This is all well known stuff and old news... /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. 1 Williston Road, Suite 4 Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com