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-Thread: 103376,64b29dfa2220a59f
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!u-picardie.fr!news.ecp.fr!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Reserve_Capacity for Unbounded_String?
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 19:00:11 -0500
Organization: Jacob's private Usenet server
Message-ID: <f863lu$ema$1@jacob-sparre.dk>
References: <1185134043.892012.217560@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
 <1185203238.701948.307410@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
 <f83ish$p8o$1@jacob-sparre.dk> <46A5B0FE.3060008@obry.net>
 <f85i0u$jsl$1@jacob-sparre.dk> <wccmyxl5plh.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: jacob-sparre.dk 1185321470 15050 69.95.181.76 (24 Jul 2007 23:57:50
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:57:50 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1807
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1896
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:1141
Date: 2007-07-24T19:00:11-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Robert A Duff" <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:wccmyxl5plh.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com...
> "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:
>
> > So I stand by my original statement. Anyone that depends on the
performance
> > characteristics of a particular implementation (of anything!) is an
idiot
> > and will be burned in the future.
>
> I really don't think you mean that literally!
>
> I mean, the Ada language standard does not require that "X := X + 1"
> take less than 100 years to execute.  Programmers _must_ trust that
> language implementers make reasonably efficient choices.  In fact,
> in Ada, I write things like "X := X + 1" all the time, trusting that it
> compiles into a single machine instruction, or close to that.

Perhaps; I was thinking of predefined libraries more than basic stuff like
"X := X + 1;". But I think you really do have to test whether something is
fast enough; you can never *assume* that it will be. Vendors don't
intentionally make things slow, but what you think is slow might not be for
a given implementation's model. Also see my answer to your other note.

                                      Randy.