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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f5d71,304c86061dc69dba X-Google-Attributes: gidf5d71,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,304c86061dc69dba X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,304c86061dc69dba X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,5cb36983754f64da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-02-14 13:47:23 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!elnk-atl-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border2.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!border1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.adelphia.com!news.adelphia.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 15:47:21 -0600 From: Jerry Coffin Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.java Subject: Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 14:54:20 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20040206174017.7E84F4C4114@lovelace.ada-france.org> <54759e7e.0402071124.322ea376@posting.google.com> <2460735.u7KiuvdgQP@linux1.krischik.com> <54759e7e.0402081525.50c7adae@posting.google.com> <54759e7e.0402091826.2847e0c@posting.google.com> <54759e7e.0402101819.95cec1d@posting.google.com> <402A29B4.3010807@noplace.com> Organization: TAEUS X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.50 NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.64.173.106 X-Trace: sv3-r7dO0lot3CkLNQmZAZE3r6B7laKs8ctMeu+NL/M+a87Xc5uSrtPXQ68eS8PpnQ+tArPh4ZEuNxu/scV!d9KxU5WA9ovIHVotGvewCxkDtZ7oEGvc8w8Ftq53LaKgWfoq3UWzLB5jgmphUcLoYbJzpUYuY4h1!csOSINKrgJBgpuRjXx3Frrc= X-Complaints-To: abuse@adelphia.com X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@adelphia.com X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5574 comp.lang.c:22475 comp.lang.c++:19141 comp.lang.java:2941 Date: 2004-02-14T14:54:20-07:00 List-Id: In article <402A29B4.3010807@noplace.com>, nobody@noplace.com says... > Given that it is 100% legal Ada to build a procedure that contains > nothing but assembly language instructions, I'd be confident that one > could build Ada code that is just as fast as anything produced by any > compiler anywhere. So if one wants to get into high-speed shootouts > between languages, a ground rule has to be that you're comparing similar > code. > > If an Ada example uses a high level abstraction of a matrix and C can't > do that sort of abstraction, then C can't play in that game. If the C > example uses some raw chunk of memory and address arithmetic, then the > Ada example would need to be coded up in that style as well (and yes, > that can be done - but nobody who uses Ada typically *wants* to. :-) > Only if you have similarly coded examples can you possibly hope to > determine if one compiler is more efficient than another. IMO, this produces a benchmark that is so far departed from the real world that while it may produce results that are accurate (for some definition of the word) they're utterly devoid of relationship with reality, and therefore of any real meaning. If you want to do a comparison, you need to compare things how they're really used. There are certainly variations among programmers, but to be meaningful the test code should fall well within the range of normal variations. We all know that "real programmers can write Fortran in any language", but writing Fortran in Ada, C++, Java, etc., doesn't really accomplish much, and the performance of such code is meaningless at best, and more likely to be downright misleading. -- Later, Jerry. The universe is a figment of its own imagination.