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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,38fc011071df5a27
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-03 19:37:56 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ideas for Ada 200X
Date: 3 Jun 2003 19:37:56 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <bebbba07.0306031837.4c7de732@posting.google.com>
References: <6a90b886.0305262344.1d558079@posting.google.com>
 <3ED4F3FD.A0EF7079@alfred-hilscher.de> <xIeBa.1017346$3D1.597085@sccrnsc01>
 <bebbba07.0305292326.75f5fbef@posting.google.com>
 <6vWcnTWjF83bD0qjXTWcpA@gbronline.com>
 <bebbba07.0305311049.753bb8f0@posting.google.com>
 <KvydnZ2dnunHfUej4p2dnA@gbronline.com>
 <bebbba07.0306022127.46f6c998@posting.google.com>
 <3EDCBDF4.1050900@attbi.com>
 <bebbba07.0306031420.69c20f71@posting.google.com>
 <BB02E370.30D1%yaldnifw@blueyonder.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.102.146.44
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1054694276 16554 127.0.0.1 (4 Jun 2003 02:37:56
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Jun 2003 02:37:56 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:38566
Date: 2003-06-04T02:37:56+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Bill Findlay <yaldnifw@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<BB02E370.30D1%yaldnifw@blueyonder.co.uk>...
> On 3/6/03 23:20, in article bebbba07.0306031420.69c20f71@posting.google.com,
> "Russ" <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> 
> > I know that Ada is preferable for safety-critical applications, but
> > based on what you are telling me, it sure seems to be a poor choice
> > for non-safety-critical simulation with heavy number crunching. Thanks
> > for clarifying that. I guess C++ is good for something after all, eh?
> 
> Only if getting results *fast* is more important than getting them *right*.
> 8-)

I prefer to get my results both fast *and* right. :^) Seriously, we
are currently doing some "fast-time" sims that take something like 8
hours of clock time. Two hours would be a lot more convenient, but 32
would be a lot less.

> (And let's not forget that Ada *can* compute the result matrix in-place,
> just not using the notation you prefer. It's a strange performance-oriented
> programmer who gives up a factor of 4 for aesthetic reasons.)

But Mr. Duff says that "+=" is just "syntactic sugar" for "Add(A,B),"
and Mr. Eachus says "+=" needs a temporary to preserve A in the case
of a Constraint_Error. So, as far as efficiency is concerned, we're
screwed either way, aren't we?