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: 103376,21960280f1d61e84
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: How come Ada isn't more popular?
References: <1169531612.200010.153120@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
 <L2ith.12633$ji1.1337@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>
 <mailman.44.1169724732.18371.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
 <WaBuh.15096$pQ3.10501@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <xwsldwre3j.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <HYPuh.15976$yx6.6882@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <md64ashx3o.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <1mahvxskejxe1$.tx7bjdqyo2oj$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <2tfy9vgph3.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <1g7m33bys8v4p.6p9cpsh3k031$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <s1mz41g7d3.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <14hm72xd3b0bq$.axktv523vay8$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4zwt33xm4b.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <1j7neot6h1udi$.14vp2aos6z9l8.dlg@40tude.net>
 <1170347180.14376.104.camel@localhost.localdomain>
 <c364al3hlu.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <1170363233.23845.118.camel@localhost.localdomain>
From: Markus E Leypold
 <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>
Organization: N/A
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 23:03:59 +0100
Message-ID: <xhirelo7qo.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ds1D6MwVwsHgt8x/87bD8KEbUWk=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.246.10
X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1170367145 88.72.246.10 (1 Feb 2007 22:59:05 +0200)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newspeer1.nwr.nac.net!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!newsfeed.freenet.de!news.unit0.net!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8851
Date: 2007-02-01T23:03:59+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes:


>> > (b) are no harder to analyze WRT O(?) than plain old procedures?
>> 
>> They aren't.
>
> I meant that the behavior of lazy programs is harder to analyze,
> or has there been an advance recently?

I doubt that it was so difficult generally. But I do not have any
privileged information about that.

Let me say it like this: The O(?) behaviour of a lazy construction in
general can be analyzed (I think) with the same degree of difficulty
as the behaviour of an imperative program. Actually you'd be surprised
how many simple imperative algorithms are at least not easy and
straight forward to analyse. As far as exact numbers go, you might be
right in that it is difficult to calculate exact coefficients. But
again that hardly does matter: The decision for an imperative languge
because it might easier to optimize or to analyse run time behaviour
is, in my eyes a typical case of prematuire optimization (as any
choice of language within a resonable base on base of opportunities to
optimize).

Regards -- Markus