Why is Ada considered "too specialized" for scientific use
in [ADA]
|
From: robin on 17 May 2010 11:57 "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap(a)library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in message news:4bf114cf$4$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice(a)news.patriot.net... | In <4bf10c9c$0$89663$c30e37c6(a)exi-reader.telstra.net>, on 05/17/2010 | at 07:23 PM, "robin" <robin51(a)dodo.com.au> said: | | >It's another example of an algorithm that was first implemented in a | >language other than Algol | | K3wl, David. Why do you persist in debunking claims that nobody has | made while ignoring the actual issues in dispute? Here it is for the n-th time :-- "none" made a claim, which I disputed because it is wrong. See below. _________________________________________________ "none" <none(a)none.net> wrote in message news:pan.2010.04.05.20.51.46.20000(a)none.net... Sent: Tuesday, 6 April 2010 6:51 AM | On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 13:19:07 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote: | | Dismissing Algol as ephemeral ignores its influence and continuing usage | as a base of pseudo-codes. Important numerical libraries were first | implemented in ALgol, No, they were first implemented in machine code, and later rewritten in Algol and FORTRAN. The numerical procedures of the General Interpretive Programme were written in machine code, from 1955. | and later translated to Fortran when Algol's | momentum faltered.
From: Richard Harter on 19 May 2010 10:55
On Tue, 18 May 2010 01:57:53 +1000, "robin" <robin51(a)dodo.com.au> wrote: >"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap(a)library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in message >news:4bf114cf$4$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice(a)news.patriot.net... >| In <4bf10c9c$0$89663$c30e37c6(a)exi-reader.telstra.net>, on 05/17/2010 >| at 07:23 PM, "robin" <robin51(a)dodo.com.au> said: >| >| >It's another example of an algorithm that was first implemented in a >| >language other than Algol >| >| K3wl, David. Why do you persist in debunking claims that nobody has >| made while ignoring the actual issues in dispute? > >Here it is for the n-th time :-- "none" made a claim, which I disputed >because it is wrong. See below. >_________________________________________________ >"none" <none(a)none.net> wrote in message news:pan.2010.04.05.20.51.46.20000(a)none.net... >Sent: Tuesday, 6 April 2010 6:51 AM >| On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 13:19:07 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote: >| >| Dismissing Algol as ephemeral ignores its influence and continuing usage >| as a base of pseudo-codes. Important numerical libraries were first >| implemented in ALgol, > >No, they were first implemented in machine code, >and later rewritten in Algol and FORTRAN. >The numerical procedures of the General Interpretive Programme >were written in machine code, from 1955. > >| and later translated to Fortran when Algol's >| momentum faltered. You appear to be misreading "Important numerical libraries were first implemented in ALgol". The quoted text can be read in either of two ways: (1) "All important numerical libraries were ..." (2) "There were important numerical libraries that were ..." In short, the quoted text can be read either as "some" or as "all", depending on context. The natural reading is "some". Indeed, your "refutation" requires "some". The general facts are that prior to the creation of fortran and algol, almost all important numerical libraries were implemented either in machine language or in assembly language. Afterwards most were implemented in higher level languages. All of that said, it is a bit misleading to say that libraries were first implemented in Algol and later translated to Fortran. Some were, that is true. For the most part, however, libraries were developed independently in the two languages. Richard Harter, cri(a)tiac.net http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com It's not much to ask of the universe that it be fair; it's not much to ask but it just doesn't happen. |