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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, FREEMAIL_REPLY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1014db,304c86061dc69dba X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: f5d71,304c86061dc69dba X-Google-Attributes: gidf5d71,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,304c86061dc69dba X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,5cb36983754f64da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-02-09 18:45:27 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!crtntx1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!chcgil2-snh1.gtei.net!news.bbnplanet.com!wn11feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail 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) From: James Rogers 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> Message-ID: Followup-To: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25 Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:45:27 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.73.180.230 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1076381127 12.73.180.230 (Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:45:27 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:45:27 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5379 comp.lang.c:21529 comp.lang.c++:18372 comp.lang.java:2822 Date: 2004-02-10T02:45:27+00:00 List-Id: msg1825@yahoo.com (MSG) wrote in news:54759e7e.0402091826.2847e0c@posting.google.com: > Thanks very much to everyone for the interesting info. It made me look > more closely at Ada. It looks like it is indeed one of the safest > languages among the ones that aren't garbage collected, which probably > makes it suitable for programming things like airplanes, etc.: > > 1. hard real-time > 2. bug-averse > 3. not very performance demanding (don't know about other compilers, > but they say GNAT produces slow executables) > > However, it does not look like it's a good match for me, since my > needs are the exact opposite: > > 1. no real time > 2. bugs welcome (but not wrong results) - lusers will not come near my > programs > 3. performance is highly important I find your list of needs interesting. How do you distinguish between bugs and wrong results? My experience is that bugs are detected because they produce incorrect results. If nothing goes wrong we do not declare the presence of a bug. I think you will find, if you look into hard real-time systems, that performance is critical. While it is true that GNAT has produced relatively slow executables in the past, those same executables are often 3 to 5 times faster than early Java programs. I know that current JVMs have improved performance significantly. I speak of JVMs from around the year 2000. Other Ada compilers produce faster code than GNAT. Sometimes you get what you pay for. (GNAT is a free compiler in the GNU compiler chain). What kind of performance measures do you use in your problem domain? C programmers are fond of fast code execution and fast compilation. C++ programmers have similar performance priorities, but are willing to sacrifice some compiler speed for the flexibility of templates. Java programmers frequently prize speed of coding, with the clever use of the large set of API libraries available to them. Ada programmers are fond of fast code and early detection of coding defects. Jim Rogers