>Yeah, it's not the faster language out there. But let's step
>back a few years and remember that Ada once had speed problems. It's not
>until the compilers improved that the reputation started to fade away.

Yes, but let's look at it in context. Ada (83) was pretty much by far the most
complex high level language devised at the time. It also required the compiler
vendors to develop a multi-tasking runtime system, and to provide masses of
checks for array ranges and so on.

They also had to contend with microprocessors with no, or very little, built in
support for multitasking, particularly as far as task-switching is concerned.
There has been a lot of work done in this area since 1983!

On the other hand, pretty much everything that exists in Java already exists in
other languages. Even the JVM is, as has been pointed out recently, not exactly
an original concept!

Basically what I am saying is that not only was there a vast learning curve
involved in creating Ada compilers, but the hardware support for many of the
features of the language just didn't exist. This is absolutely not the case with
Java.

Essentially any criticism of Java's performance must be aimed at the JVM.
Ultimately, as long as Java runs on the JVM, it is *never* going to be as quick
as a compiled-to-native-code language.

John



********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender
immediately by telephoning +44(1252) 373232. You should not copy it
or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to
any other person.
********************************************************************