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
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
From: "W. Wesley Groleau x4923" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 13:16:11 -0500
Reply-To: "W. Wesley Groleau x4923" <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (31 lines)
> In case you haven't seen it yet, there is a article titled "The Bench++
> Benchmark Suite" by Joseph M. Orost in the October issue of Dr. Dobb's
> Journal.
> In the article he compares the performance of his benchmark compiled under
> GNU g++ v2.7.2 and Sun CC in SC 4.0 on a Ultra-2 (even listing the
> compilation flags.)
> Later he compares his benchmark compiled under Sun CC (no flags listed
> this time) on a Ultra-2 against the Ada PIWG suite compiled underVAX/Ada
> 2.1-28 (no compiler options listed) on a VAX 8650.
> Why he didn't compare g++ vs gnat on the Ultra-2 (with and without error
> checking enabled) is something of a mystery to me.  Why the editors of DDJ
> allowed such a meaningless comparison in their magazine is too depressing
> to contemplate...
> Ron Skoog
> rons@aonix

Well, the message above would make a fine letter to the editors without
even requiring a lot of polishing.

You might need to make it a little more plain to them why it's
meaningless, i.e., _which_ of the many differences is he trying to
compare?  What can we prove by putting aviation fuel in an airplane and
alcohol in a moped?

Different language, different CPU family, different benchmark, ...  The
only thing in common was the loose nut on the keyboard....