Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language)

From: Marin David Condic (nobody_at_noplace.com)
Date: 02/11/04 

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:10:24 GMT

Given that it is 100% legal Ada to build a procedure that contains
nothing but assembly language instructions, I'd be confident that one
could build Ada code that is just as fast as anything produced by any
compiler anywhere. So if one wants to get into high-speed shootouts
between languages, a ground rule has to be that you're comparing similar
code.

If an Ada example uses a high level abstraction of a matrix and C can't
do that sort of abstraction, then C can't play in that game. If the C
example uses some raw chunk of memory and address arithmetic, then the
Ada example would need to be coded up in that style as well (and yes,
that can be done - but nobody who uses Ada typically *wants* to. :-)
Only if you have similarly coded examples can you possibly hope to
determine if one compiler is more efficient than another.

MDC

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>
> There is a problem with that. C does not have arrays. Yet matrices,
> you know, are two-dimensional ones. So any comparison here would be
> suspicious. A program in C, supposed to multiply matrices would lack 

-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm
Send Replies To: m   o   d   c @ a   m   o   g
                    c   n   i       c   .   r
     "Face it ladies, its not the dress that makes you look fat.
     Its the FAT that makes you look fat."
         --  Al Bundy
======================================================================