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: f5d71,304c86061dc69dba X-Google-Attributes: gidf5d71,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,304c86061dc69dba X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,304c86061dc69dba X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,5cb36983754f64da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-02-10 22:30:17 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn11feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc05-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> <54759e7e.0402101819.95cec1d@posting.google.com> Message-ID: Followup-To: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25 Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 06:30:17 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.73.183.223 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1076481017 12.73.183.223 (Wed, 11 Feb 2004 06:30:17 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 06:30:17 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5418 comp.lang.c:21802 comp.lang.c++:18631 comp.lang.java:2850 Date: 2004-02-11T06:30:17+00:00 List-Id: msg1825@yahoo.com (MSG) wrote in news:54759e7e.0402101819.95cec1d@posting.google.com: > Can you write (*) a matrix multiplication routine in Ada, compile it > with GNAT and measure the number CPU cycles per FLOP, compare to a > similar routine in C? > The shootout seems to put GNAT closer to Perl and Java than to C/C++. The shootout numbers I saw put vc at .07, gcc at 0.10 and GNAT at .20. Java was 0.73 and Perl was 34.31. I do not see how .2 is closer to .7 or 34 than it is to .1. Your mathematics seems seriously flawed. Please explain your reasoning. Jim Rogers