From: David Starner <dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu>
Subject: Re: naval systems
Date: 26 Feb 2002 17:44:58 GMT
Date: 2002-02-26T17:44:58+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a5ghiq$9281@news.cis.okstate.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: a5djrr$m65$1@nh.pace.co.uk
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:05:30 -0500, Marin David Condic <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[> wrote:
> Besides, I'd suggest that in real applications that typically involve
> hundereds of source files, Ada is likely to *buy* you time over something
> like C because it can tell what needs to be recompiled and what doesn't. It
> works faster by not working at all. :-)
I don't think it makes much difference when comparing make-driven C code
base and gnatmake-driven Ada. You should get the same results either
way, except the first is much more work and much more powerful - any
sufficently large project will need a makefile, to build docs if for
nothing else.
> In general, I just don't see compilation speed as a big deal these days and
> Ada is competitively fast when compared to C.i
But GNAT is noticably slower than gcc, and you can't claim that Ada
compilers are as fast as C compilers, and then argue that it doesn't
matter when someone pushes the point. Be honest; point out that Ada
compilers are fast enough, instead.
--
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."
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-02-26 17:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <3C74E519.3F5349C4@baesystems.com>
[not found] ` <20020221205157.05542.00000012@mb-cm.news.cs.com>
2002-02-22 12:19 ` naval systems David Gillon
2002-02-22 14:55 ` Marin David Condic
2002-02-23 5:54 ` David Starner
2002-02-25 15:05 ` Marin David Condic
2002-02-26 2:34 ` Larry Kilgallen
2002-02-26 17:44 ` David Starner [this message]
2002-02-26 19:49 ` Pat Rogers
2002-02-26 19:55 ` Ray Blaak
2002-02-26 20:46 ` Pat Rogers
2002-02-26 22:41 ` Ray Blaak
2002-02-27 0:02 ` Pat Rogers
2002-02-27 5:01 ` David Starner
2002-02-27 9:38 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen
2002-02-27 19:48 ` compiler benchmark comparisons (was: naval systems) Wes Groleau
2002-02-27 21:51 ` Pat Rogers
2002-03-01 2:04 ` David Starner
2002-03-01 4:06 ` Pat Rogers
2002-02-27 23:53 ` Gary Barnes
2002-02-28 2:19 ` Dan Andreatta
2002-02-28 10:04 ` Jerry van Dijk
2002-02-28 13:35 ` compiler benchmark comparisons Georg Bauhaus
2002-02-28 18:12 ` Dan Andreatta
2002-03-01 5:07 ` Robert Dewar
2002-03-01 16:43 ` Dan Andreatta
2002-03-01 23:17 ` Dan Andreatta
2002-03-01 23:40 ` tmoran
2002-02-28 14:18 ` compiler benchmark comparisons (was: naval systems) Wes Groleau
2002-02-28 14:31 ` Ted Dennison
2002-02-28 18:33 ` Dan Andreatta
2002-02-28 21:14 ` Wes Groleau
2002-02-28 14:01 ` Wes Groleau
2002-03-01 22:01 ` Randy Brukardt
2002-02-28 15:58 ` Larry Kilgallen
[not found] ` <338040f8.0202271819.373f733a@Organization: LJK Software <TgAW8WWqYgP5@eisner.encompasserve.org>
2002-03-01 19:29 ` Robert Dewar
2002-03-02 11:12 ` Pascal Obry
2002-03-02 19:49 ` Richard Riehle
[not found] ` <5ee5b646.0203011129.1bdbac56@po <ug03ji5ow.fsf@wanadoo.fr>
2002-03-02 18:20 ` Simon Wright
2002-02-27 2:28 ` naval systems David Starner
2002-02-27 21:44 ` Pat Rogers
2002-03-01 2:59 ` David Starner
2002-03-01 15:33 ` Pat Rogers
2002-03-01 17:22 ` Jeffrey Carter
2002-03-03 5:21 ` David Starner
2002-02-26 22:40 ` Pascal Obry
2002-02-27 0:42 ` David Starner
2002-02-23 19:18 ` John R. Strohm
2002-02-23 18:36 ` martin.m.dowie
2002-02-25 15:10 ` Marin David Condic
2002-02-28 16:33 ` tony gair
2002-02-28 17:33 ` David Gillon
2002-02-28 21:18 ` Wes Groleau
2002-03-01 17:31 ` Boeing 777 (WAS: naval systems) Simon Pilgrim
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox