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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,52fd60a337c05842 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-14 14:33:02 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!130.133.1.3!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!pd955e9ab.dip.t-dialin.NET!not-for-mail From: Immanuel Scholz Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: RE: ada paper critic Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 23:34:05 +0200 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: pd955e9ab.dip.t-dialin.net (217.85.233.171) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1024090381 6660820 217.85.233.171 (16 [100557]) User-Agent: KNode/0.6.1 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:25987 Date: 2002-06-14T23:34:05+02:00 List-Id: Beard, Frank [Contractor] wrote: > It's been several years (maybe 8 now), but when we were looking > for a fast Ada compiler for a unix platform for doing some > high-speed graphics calculations, we wrote a benchmark test and > looked at various performances of various compilers. > > At the time Tartan Ada executables outran the Tartan C executables. > What's so impressive about that? Tartan C compilers also produced > the fastest C executables (which were faster than the C++ exe's). > > Tartan ran on several platforms, which I think included X86's. I > think the may be owned by DDC-I now. Have you any uptotime Comparation? What about the speed of the common libraries? ("It doesn't matter how fast the compiler is, when the only avaiable sort algorithm takes sqare-time" ;-) Are there benches to graphical libraries? (Are there graphical libraries?) Immanuel Scholz