>> [...] solves the same problems without a runtime, and about 3 times the performance.
I think you should look more into Ada. The only "runtime" is for the exception handling and bounds checking, both of which can be turned off if needed.
And I don't know where you got that "3 times" figure from? Do you have an example you are referring to?
I knew you could turn off the runtime but not about the formal verification lint tools that make it safe to do so. My reference for performance is the benchmark game. If you or someone else can mod those programs to beat rust I'd be thrilled. I like Ada.
Most of my experience is embedded c++ but I have written ada rust and a fair bit of jovial73. Rust is a perfect fit for those same domains. Most o the things that ran Ada in the US have now switched to c++. Do178b certified safety critical c++ is a horrible thing to develop. I'm hoping rust comes in to fix that.
I believe the performance differences on The Computer Language Benchmarks Game is largely due to the implementations themselves. For one, pidigits have been translated from Pascal to Ada using p2ada. I do not think that this is a fair comparison at all.
I agree on that one, I'm rusty at ada, bad pun, but someone should profile and fix it. The n body one is half the speed of rust and it is hand tweaked using simd instructions. I wouldn't mind at all goin back to Ada. Most of the people that switched to c++ did so in order to have a larger hiring pool or to seem more modern. Some of them are switching to safety critical Java now for the same reasons. I suspect safety critical python is on the horizon. If airliners have to start worrying about python 2/3 headaches I'll know it is time to retire.
Yeah, I wish we had Ada experts fixing and optimizing them. That would be neat! It matters a lot to people, and Rust versions have been optimized to oblivion by many people. It should be done with Ada, too, to have a fair comparison. :)
And yeah, it is a valid and very serious issue. If we had more Ada programmers, we would not have to sit in trains or airplanes "powered" by C++, haha.
I tested the code. It compiles and runs just fine. I compared the checksum of the output from both Rust and this version, they are identical:
md5 5b185f9a67a426baf78aa3bbb5baf8df out_rust
md5 5b185f9a67a426baf78aa3bbb5baf8df out_ada
On top of that, I got this:
Rust:
real 0m0.702s
user 0m0.693s
sys 0m0.007s
Ada:
real 0m0.708s
user 0m0.706s
sys 0m0.000s
Why don't you use this version instead? The output is correct and identical to Rust's, and the performance is significantly better: just as fast as C and Rust, as expected.
I tested it with N = 10000. I see the issue now though.
Edit: I do not understand your reaction to me thanking you for bringing my (and possibly other people's) attention to the other implementation. It was genuine.
> You're reading-between-the-lines something that isn't there.
I think you should look more into Ada. The only "runtime" is for the exception handling and bounds checking, both of which can be turned off if needed.
And I don't know where you got that "3 times" figure from? Do you have an example you are referring to?