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: 103376,13c7ec19f3c43155
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!hwmnpeer03.ams!news.highwinds-media.com!feeder1.xlned.com!xlned.com!amsnews11.chello.com!nuzba.szn.dk!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: speed of generic code in Ada (vs Java)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 19:16:07 -0500
Organization: Jacob's private Usenet server
Message-ID: <g17mpq$rp3$1@jacob-sparre.dk>
References: 
 <9e9bdae7-5e91-4e0c-b783-1ed72311a733@t12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
 <2e1de55a-69e5-439e-addc-bde650b4c16a@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
 <c8282ec5-a5cb-4094-b0b1-bad097352250@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
 <wccy7633br3.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <g12deg$qdb$1@jacob-sparre.dk>
 <wcc1w3seile.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: jacob-sparre.dk 1211588218 28451 69.95.181.76 (24 May 2008 00:16:58
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 00:16:58 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5512
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:311
Date: 2008-05-23T19:16:07-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Robert A Duff" <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in message 
news:wcc1w3seile.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com...
> "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:
...
>> The net effect is that generalizations about Ada performance are probably
>> not well-founded. Usually, Ada performance is similar to that of C++, but
>> implementation differences can be a big deal and more different than 
>> those
>> between languages.
>
> I disagree.  Performance of Ada is pretty-close to C and C++ in most
> cases.  Performance of Ada is better than Java (and Smalltalk and ...)
> in most cases.  The implementation matters, but the language rules
> matter more.

You haven't used a wide enough variety of Ada compilers if you say that. 
Janus/Ada in particular. :-) The performance characteristics of Janus/Ada 
are very different than GNAT, on a variety of things: generics, 
discriminanted records, exceptions, tasking, just to name a few. (Sometimes 
better, sometimes worse.) Another example would be the old AdaEd compiler, 
where the result was always interpreted.

I agree that the language characteristics have a role to play (especially 
things that require dynamic memory allocation, implicitly or explicitly), 
but the implementation differences also matter a lot. I'd expect that a 
highly optimized Java JIT compiler would beat AdaEd on most measures, for 
example.

                             Randy.