Re: ada vs. cpp

[Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com>]

In article <WzGw7.186001$w7.28407353@news02.optonline.net>, Mike Mohr says...
>I don't believe Ada needs a specific pass-by-value or pass-by-reference
>mechanism, and I don't think C++ strings a better than Ada strings.
>I was just playing along ;)

Ahh, sorry. I missed the tounge-in-cheek. My bad.

>It isn't strictly necessary for a C++ programmer to have
>the identical facilities available to an Ada programmer to
>complete a task.  My examples showed this (yet challenges
>continue :).

I'm actually with you on that. C++'s problems are, for the most part, not in
lack of capability.

>Speaking of high level comparisons, I would really like to
>see how Ada does in the great language shootout.
>
>http://www.bagley.org/~doug/shootout/

Considering that he's mostly interested in execution time and memory usage, the
numbers are totally bogus. That issue's come up here several times. If I compile
the "same algorithm" with compiler X and compiler Y, and X is faster, then all
that tells you is that compiler X makes faster executables for this problem than
Y does. It *doesn't* tell you that the language X compiles is somehow inherently
faster than Y's language. Most likely, I could pick compilers W and Z that would
reverse your results language results.

I also find in odd that he refuses to use optimization options. That will
produce atrocious code using gcc (no matter what the front-end).


---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. 
However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.