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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,63bbc3281a2f80ea
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Ada vs. C
Date: 1996/08/09
Message-ID: <dewar.839617668@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 173216813
references: <3208F2BA.E34@freenet.scri.fsu.edu> <4ue8go$1c6@huron.eel.ufl.edu>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-08-09T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Daniel said

" I guarentee you that the C code will always come out smaller than the C++
 equivalent will, due to OO overhead. Ada uses OO, even thouhgh you can
 code in a proceedural fashion, the standard libs are designed to be
 used in OO programming and therefore carry the OO overhead. Is this
 a bad thing? Only if you don't feel that an OO approach is the best
 solution to your current task, but it does seem that the CIS community
 is moving toward OOP."

I have no idea what this means. The standard libraries consist, at least
in GNAT, of hundreds of separate units, some of which use some features
of OO (not many), most of which do not. There is no inherent OO overhead.
Your guarantee with respect to C and C++ is also completely odd. Indeed
since C++ is largely a subset of C, the typical C++ code that corresponds
to the C code is identical to the C code, and in any reasonable compilation
environment generates exactly the same bits as the C code.