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: 103376,5cb36983754f64da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-02-11 13:05:09 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!news.eunet.no!uninett.no!newsfeed1.eu.ignite.net!newsr1.ipcore.viaginterkom.de!btnet-peer1!btnet-feed5!btnet!news.btopenworld.com!not-for-mail From: "Martin Dowie" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:04:17 +0000 (UTC) Organization: BT Openworld Message-ID: 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> NNTP-Posting-Host: host81-129-61-126.in-addr.btopenworld.com X-Trace: titan.btinternet.com 1076533457 1623 81.129.61.126 (11 Feb 2004 21:04:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news-complaints@lists.btinternet.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:04:17 +0000 (UTC) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5451 Date: 2004-02-11T21:04:17+00:00 List-Id: "Jerry Coffin" wrote in message news:MPG.1a93b6629128b2fc989c8b@news.clspco.adelphia.net... > The last time I checked, GNAT uses the same back-end as the other GNU > compilers, so if it doesn't produce as good of code, it's a strong > indication of a performance problem in the language proper. No, it could be an indication of a problem in the front-end - but any such inefficiency need not be *required* by the language standard. [snip] > Though I don't work with as many Ada programmers on as regular a basis, > it appears to me that many do more or less the opposite: it's so widely > assumed that the compiler will catch almost all errors, that many > blithely assume that almost anything that compiles MUST be correct. I do and I'm not sure that's true but YMMV. > Without trying to take this too far, the result is that in _many_ cases, > what are widely perceived as strengths or weaknesses of particular > languages often end up being almost exactly the opposite of what's > really the case. In the end, nearly all the factors being discussed > depend far more on the programmer than the language, so complacency is > common but rarely justified. I agree with this. For example, I know lots of engineers who worry about context switch times and function call overheads, but on today's processors, these are unlikely to be a major problem - cache paging on the other hand... -- Martin