TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
From: Hassett <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 20:42:19 -0600
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Reply-To: Hassett <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (26 lines)
On a mailing list concerned with another programming language (but not a
very well-known one*), the following comment appeared today:

> If you want to see a really slow compiler I suggest
> you try using ADA (yuk!) if you haven't already.

I suspect this may be based on not-very-current experience, and I would
like to provide some solid evidence that Ada compilers need not be slow.

Can anyone provide or point to any data that might be useful for this
purpose?  I didn't find anything during a brief check of the major Ada
web sites, but I'll do some more searching.

Of course, there are a great many variables influencing compilation speed,
but a few data points might be enough to counter the bad impression that
might have been made by the above remark.  It would be inappropriate to
get into a big discussion of Ada compilation speed on that mailing list,
but I think a brief response would be OK (possibly with a pointer to more

- Jim Hassett

* The language is Clean, a pure and lazy functional programming language.