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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,539c04254abf1b37 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-02-22 23:22:45 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!unlnews.unl.edu!newsfeed.ksu.edu!nntp.ksu.edu!news.okstate.edu!not-for-mail From: David Starner Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: naval systems Date: 23 Feb 2002 05:54:45 GMT Organization: Oklahoma State University Message-ID: References: <3C74E519.3F5349C4@baesystems.com> <20020221205157.05542.00000012@mb-cm.news.cs.com> <3C763746.CC8B2965@baesystems.com> Reply-To: starner@okstate.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: x8b4e546f.dhcp.okstate.edu User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20286 Date: 2002-02-23T05:54:45+00:00 List-Id: On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 09:55:35 -0500, Marin David Condic wrote: > Try one today. Most are as good or better than C compilers. Both in terms of > how fast they can compile code and how fast the code is that they compile. > This accusation may have at one time been true, but it is very, very, very > badly outdated. Really? At least in a comparison between GNAT and gcc on similar, small pieces of code (< 2000 lines), I've found gcc to be virtually instanteous, whereas GNAT took a number of seconds to process the code. -- David Starner - starner@okstate.edu What we've got is a blue-light special on truth. It's the hottest thing with the youth. -- Information Society, "Peace and Love, Inc."