Re: c++ vs ada results

[nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson)]

In article <1991Jun12.201740.16463@netcom.COM> jls@netcom.COM (Jim Showalter) writes:

   >o	ADA still tends to be slow, though that problem is slowly 
   >	going away.

   As with the "too many features" shibboleth, this common myth doesn't
   hold up under even rudimentary analysis of the facts. There are
   compilers available for a number of targets that produce code at
   least as dense and efficient as C/C++ compilers for the same target.

   >o	C++ compilers are cheap -- the GNU family is free, and runs 
   >	on a number of different architectures.  You can get the source 
   >	code so that you can fix it if it's broken.

   You get what you pay for. Personally, I'd much prefer to buy a validated
   compiler with the number of bugs approaching zero than use a free compiler
   so shot full of bugs the source code is provided to me to patch around
   problems that SHOULD have been taken care of by the vendor.

Why is "ada is slow" a myth, but "GCC is shot full of bugs" is not?  Certainly
if you're an expert on GCC's bugs, you could name one of them.

It's been my experience that the vendors of compilers *never* share their
bug list with customers.  For GCC, you just have to tune into gnu.gcc.bug.

--
--russ <nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu> I'm proud to be a humble Quaker.
I am leaving the employ of Clarkson as of June 30.  Hopefully this email
address will remain.  If it doesn't, use nelson@gnu.ai.mit.edu.