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: 103376,7d2c8b4487ef2145
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Ada versus Java - Tasking
Date: 1997/01/25
Message-ID: <dewar.854212102@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 212167219
references: <01bc03ee$594dc520$829d6482@joy.ericsson.se>
 <bbalfour-1601971607050001@stmac0088.std.caci.com>
organization: New York University
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-01-25T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Jonas asks

">My test starts 50 producer-consumer pairs that run in
>parallell. Each pair produces/consumes 1000 messages
>of 50 bytes. I get the following timing on my P133,
>16M, and running Win95:
>
>Ada  (Gnat 3.04a)  : ~30 s
>Java (MS SDK-Java) : ~15 s
>
>This result was very much to my surprise!
"


This should not surprise you. The timing of such a program (assuming both
are using kernel threads) is almost completely dependent on the number of
kernel calls issued. It may well be for example that some non-obvious
aspect of the way you wrote the program in the two languages leads to
such a difference (Ada taskings semantics are quite a bit more developed
than those in Java, and this may show up as extra kernel calls in some
cases, e.g. the avoidance of priority inversion in Ada may cost extra
(but be wll worth it!)).
\