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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1014db,304c86061dc69dba X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,304c86061dc69dba X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,5cb36983754f64da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-02-17 15:20:05 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail From: David Starner Subject: Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2 (This is not a psychotic episode. It's a cleansing moment of clarity. (Debian GNU/Linux)) Message-Id: Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++ References: <20040206174017.7E84F4C4114@lovelace.ada-france.org> <54759e7e.0402071124.322ea376@posting.google.com> <2460735.u7KiuvdgQP@linux1.krischik.com> <54759e7e.0402081525.50c7adae@posting.google.com> <54759e7e.0402091826.2847e0c@posting.google.com> <54759e7e.0402101819.95cec1d@posting.google.com> <402A29B4.3010807@noplace.com> <402F7EFC.9070304@noplace.com> Followup-To: comp.lang.ada MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:20:04 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.72.69.131 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1077060004 12.72.69.131 (Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:20:04 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:20:04 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5640 comp.lang.c:22994 comp.lang.c++:19497 Date: 2004-02-17T23:20:04+00:00 List-Id: On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 02:19:52 -0700, Jerry Coffin wrote: > I'm the first to admit that most applications aren't this compute- > intensive, but I'll also point out that MPEG encoding isn't exactly > unheard-of either, and there are a number of other tasks that are even > more so (e.g. cryptanalysis in many cases). But in serious applications, the time-intensive code is in assembly or stuff that uses machine-specific intrinsics in a way that leaves the compiler out of the loop. There's also a big difference between what a normal programmer might write and how he'd use the compiler and the way that a programmer writing an optimized MPEG encoder would write and how he'd use the compiler, and comparing compiler speed for one may not tell you much about the other. Yes, you can write Fortran in any language, and sometimes that's what you need to do.