Why is Ada considered "too specialized" for scientific use
in [ADA]
|
From: robin on 6 Apr 2010 11:30 "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap(a)library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in message news:4bbb2246$8$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice(a)news.patriot.net... | In <4bba8bf1$0$56418$c30e37c6(a)exi-reader.telstra.net>, on 04/06/2010 | at 11:18 AM, "robin" <robin51(a)dodo.com.au> said: | | >No, they | | Who is "they"? Note the lack of a universal qualifier. Because you cut the sentence and the one before it, you lost the significance. Restoring it, we have: "| 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." you can see that it is patently obvious that "they" refers to "Important Numerical libraries". | Are you claiming | that all algorithms were developed first in machine code, You will also realize that it's referring to important ones, and that it's disputing the claim that such libraries were first implemented in Algol. | much less all | algorithms developed in the 1960's and 1970's? For that matter, do you | know of *any* algorithm that was first developed in machine code? I'm sure | that there were some, but I'd expect them to be rare as hen's teeth and | mostly limited to the 1950's and very early 1950's. Restoring the immediately following sentence that you also cut out, we see that I said: "The numerical procedures of the General Interpretive Programme "were written in machine code, from 1955." which means that the procedures of "General Interpretive Programme" were written in machine code, from 1955 -- which predates Algol by several years, does it not? As for your supercilious question, do I <<know of *any* algorithm that was first developed in machine code?>> -- Had you actually read my post, you would have seen that I gave reference to a important numerical library. Come to think of any numerical algorithm developed before Algol, you may have heard of J. H. Wilkinson's work on numerical algorithms, for which he wrote machine code from 1947. In his other early work, he wrote programs (machine code) to solve simultaneous equations back in about 1951. as for any algorhtin
From: Warren on 6 Apr 2010 12:39 Georg Bauhaus expounded in news:4bbb3f22$0$7660$9b4e6d93(a)newsspool1.arcor-online.net: ... > (2) why not use a better C compiler (if it has to be C) even on > MS Windows, such as the ones listed below---if it has to be C? > > (I should add that the MS OS is purchased at a higher price > than most alternatives, too; price was a listed as an issue.) They didn't even take advantage of C's own type system. Everything flows through a WORD or DWORD. The win api is so very lame because of this. The C++ layer is better, but.. > Or less attractive than compilers for one of the other > languages such as Ada or Fortran or ... that support both fairly > recent standards and computing with complex numbers. Obviously Fortran persists because of existing code base and those that only "know" that. But egads, the current rendition of Fortran seem to have so many "bags on the side" and is downright "butt ugly". Why anyone would want to continue to wallow in that swill, is beyond me. Ada as a language OTOH, is so nice and clean by comparison. Warren
From: Sebastian Hanigk on 6 Apr 2010 13:53 Warren <ve3wwg(a)gmail.com> writes: > Obviously Fortran persists because of existing code base and > those that only "know" that. But egads, the current rendition > of Fortran seem to have so many "bags on the side" and is > downright "butt ugly". Why anyone would want to continue > to wallow in that swill, is beyond me. Ada as a language OTOH, > is so nice and clean by comparison. I won't even start with your puny attempts at a language crusade, suffice to say that all the niceness and cleanness is quite unusable if you don't have a compiler. And on most supercomputers where serious number crunching is performed, you do not have an Ada compiler and even building gnat would be a very major pain (bootstrapping ...). Regards, Sebastian
From: J. Clarke on 6 Apr 2010 15:53 On 4/6/2010 10:03 AM, Georg Bauhaus wrote: > Keith Thompson schrieb: >> Georg Bauhaus<rm-host.bauhaus(a)maps.futureapps.de> writes: >> [...] >>> C99 (note the year) has complex types, says C hasn't. Well, it >>> hadn't, as some point in the last century. >> [...] >> >> Unfortunately, the C99 standard has not yet been universally adopted. >> Very few compilers fully support it. Many support most of it, >> but I understand that Microsoft's compiler still supports only C90 >> (with maybe a handful of C99-specific features). >> >> Which means that as soon as you write "#include<complex.h>", you've >> limited the portability of your program. > > OHOH, scientific programs would require best use of your > computer's resources, wouldn't they? So > > (1) why run scientific programs on an OS (still largely written in C > AFAIK ...) that by default makes a herd of programs and services keep > your computer really busy without your program running, and > > (2) why not use a better C compiler (if it has to be C) even on > MS Windows, such as the ones listed below---if it has to be C? > > (I should add that the MS OS is purchased at a higher price > than most alternatives, too; price was a listed as an issue.) > > But indeed, even though there is C in Windows NT, > > "Thanks for taking the time to send us your suggestion. Currently, there are > no plans to implement C99 support in VS2010. Once we complete this product > cycle, we will be reviewing all customer suggestions, including this one, for > our future planning. > > "Thanks, > Mark Roberts > Visual C++ Team" > > http://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/485416/support-c99 > > > So for scientific computing, MS C will be a less attractive choice > than GNU C or Intel C, or Comeaucomputing's C on top of MS C adding > C99 to MS C, or ... > > Or less attractive than compilers for one of the other > languages such as Ada or Fortran or ... that support both fairly recent > standards and computing with complex numbers. What is the objection to using the C++ complex library?
From: Warren on 6 Apr 2010 16:45
Sebastian Hanigk expounded in news:hpfsf8$495$1(a)news.lrz-muenchen.de: > Warren <ve3wwg(a)gmail.com> writes: > >> Obviously Fortran persists because of existing code base and >> those that only "know" that. But egads, the current rendition >> of Fortran seem to have so many "bags on the side" and is >> downright "butt ugly". Why anyone would want to continue >> to wallow in that swill, is beyond me. Ada as a language OTOH, >> is so nice and clean by comparison. > > I won't even start with your puny attempts at a language crusade, ..... > Sebastian Wooo-oooo, aren't we snubby today. Warren |