Why is Ada considered "too specialized" for scientific use
in [ADA]
|
Prev: Request for parallel computing books in comp.parallel
Next: Press Release - Reliable Software Technologies, Ada-Europe 2010
From: Shmuel Metz on 7 Jun 2010 05:41 In <m2k4qc3y0r.fsf(a)pushface.org>, on 06/06/2010 at 05:51 PM, Simon Wright <simon(a)pushface.org> said: >Perhaps he means they look different :-) Perhaps your dog wrote the article with your name. <g, d & r> -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel> Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamtrap(a)library.lspace.org
From: Shmuel Metz on 7 Jun 2010 05:32 In <hugevn02qfb(a)news5.newsguy.com>, on 06/06/2010 at 11:19 AM, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> said: >What do you believe to be the difference between machine code and >assembler? What do you believe to be the similarity? In assembler code everything is symbolic and you don't even have a 1-1 relationship between lines of source code and words of object code. Coding in assembler is far less labor intensive than coding in machine language. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel> Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamtrap(a)library.lspace.org
From: Shmuel Metz on 7 Jun 2010 21:21 In <huis7g02bi(a)news7.newsguy.com>, on 06/07/2010 at 09:23 AM, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> said: >If it "optimizes" then it's not an assembler, no matter what it might >be called. In what universe? >Don't do anything you couldn't do by hand Neither does any other compiler. >He came down with cancer around the time that assemblers started to >become common, Strange; Wiki claims that he lived until 1957. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel> Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamtrap(a)library.lspace.org
From: Shmuel Metz on 8 Jun 2010 06:07 In <4c0cc11d$0$56569$c30e37c6(a)exi-reader.telstra.net>, on 06/07/2010 at 07:38 PM, "robin" <robin51(a)dodo.com.au> said: >Anyway, the point I was making was that the programs >were run before the March 1953 Symposium, >and that the programs preceded FORTRAN, and preceded ALGOL. Neither ALGOL nor FORTRAN was the first programming language. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel> Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamtrap(a)library.lspace.org
From: Shmuel Metz on 8 Jun 2010 06:01
In <hujp34$m4p$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, on 06/07/2010 at 05:56 PM, Peter Flass <Peter_Flass(a)Yahoo.com> said: >That's it. I believe it was an IBM 704, You could attach a drum to a 704, but the main memory was core. >Drums were popular as storage on systems, >even with disks, because, being head per track, Google for FastRand. >They were often used as a swap medium. ITYM paging; moving-head devices were good enough for swap. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel> Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamtrap(a)library.lspace.org |