From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
	ip-172-31-65-14.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_40,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC,
	T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: does a safer language mean it is slower to run?
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2023 22:55:51 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <u5rjg8$1dr0c$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: nma@12000.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2023 03:55:52 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="10163296a3ae74866e04f644b70d04bc";
	logging-data="1502220"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX194yr9hnMKNko9oXMuomIXo"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ybPFFfNnPHi25blH1seSOcWLGog=
Content-Language: en-US
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:65299
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Some folks in this thread

https://discourse.julialang.org/t/comparison-of-rust-to-julia-for-scientific-computing/78508

"I’m not an expert, but my feeling is that Rust is a “safer” language,
which to me means it must be slower."

etc..

Some in that thread seem to argue that a safer language
will/could be slower than otherwise.

Since Ada is known to be one of the safest languages,
do others here feel there is any truth to this?

I thought that by having more type information in the language,
the compile will be able to make more optimizations (because it
know more), and hence the generated code should actually be
faster, not slower with a language that is less safe?

I am not a compiler expert but what do others here think?

--Nasser