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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,LOTS_OF_MONEY,
	TO_NO_BRKTS_FROM_MSSP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1cf653444208df72
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-09 11:46:08 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!sfo2-feed1.news.digex.net!intermedia!news-out.spamkiller.net!propagator-la!news-in-la.newsfeeds.com!news-in.superfeed.net!newsranger.com!www.newsranger.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
From: Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com>
References: <Xns912FE7C63AC8Dralphworkcoza@196.25.240.158>
 <slrn9rn660.uu.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <Xns912FEBF1DF3EBralphworkcoza@196.25.240.158>
 <tTRu7.25751$S_6.2879078@news20.bellglobal.com>
 <9pgr68$7pu1@news.cis.okstate.edu>
 <slrn9rondp.tn.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <9phnic$9g5$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <uadz7nza7.fsf@wanadoo.fr>
 <5fkv7.134136$w7.19988807@news02.optonline.net> <u8zepgmea.fsf@wanadoo.fr>
 <d7jw7.172545$w7.26206237@news02.optonline.net> <9pski60j31@drn.newsguy.com>
 <dFlw7.173483$w7.26404906@news02.optonline.net>
 <KZEw7.21653$ev2.29994@www.newsranger.com>
 <WzGw7.186001$w7.28407353@news02.optonline.net>
Subject: Re: ada vs. cpp
Message-ID: <nBHw7.21930$ev2.30451@www.newsranger.com>
X-Abuse-Info: When contacting newsranger.com regarding abuse please
X-Abuse-Info: forward the entire news article including headers or
X-Abuse-Info: else we will not be able to process your request
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsranger.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 14:45:39 EDT
Organization: http://www.newsranger.com
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 18:45:39 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14071
Date: 2001-10-09T18:45:39+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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.