Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language)
From: James Rogers (jimmaureenrogers_at_att.net)
Date: 02/11/04
- Next message: those who know me have no need of my name: "Re: DO YOU WANT MONEY!!!"
- Previous message: cr88192: "Re: Is D better than C?"
- In reply to: MSG: "Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language)"
- Next in thread: MSG: "Ada performance (was No call for Ada )"
- Reply: MSG: "Ada performance (was No call for Ada )"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 06:30:17 GMT
msg1825@yahoo.com (MSG) wrote in
news:54759e7e.0402101819.95cec1d@posting.google.com:
> Can you write (*) a matrix multiplication routine in Ada, compile it
> with GNAT and measure the number CPU cycles per FLOP, compare to a
> similar routine in C?
> The shootout seems to put GNAT closer to Perl and Java than to C/C++.
The shootout numbers I saw put vc at .07, gcc at 0.10 and GNAT at .20.
Java was 0.73 and Perl was 34.31.
I do not see how .2 is closer to .7 or 34 than it is to .1.
Your mathematics seems seriously flawed.
Please explain your reasoning.
Jim Rogers
- Next message: those who know me have no need of my name: "Re: DO YOU WANT MONEY!!!"
- Previous message: cr88192: "Re: Is D better than C?"
- In reply to: MSG: "Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language)"
- Next in thread: MSG: "Ada performance (was No call for Ada )"
- Reply: MSG: "Ada performance (was No call for Ada )"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
