Why is Ada considered "too specialized" for scientific use
in [Fortran]
|
From: Shmuel Metz on 17 May 2010 06:05 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? >So, the correct answer is therefore "yes". Unfortunately it's the answer to a question that nobody asked. It's not the correct answer to what you actually posted. >To be sure, I know what machine code is. The evidence suggests otherwise. >I used the term in the general sense. The "general sense" would have been machine language on more than just the 704. Pointing to assembler code as an example of machine language just makes you look less than Frank. >Here, the intent was to point out that the algorithm was not first >implemented in Algol. Which is totally irrelevant to the issues in dispute. -- 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: robin on 17 May 2010 06:09 "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? | | >So, the correct answer is therefore "yes". | | Unfortunately it's the answer to a question that nobody asked. Go back and look at the postings. You will find that it is. | It's not the correct answer to what you actually posted. You are mistaken. What side of the bed did you get out of this morning? | >To be sure, I know what machine code is. | | The evidence suggests otherwise. | | >I used the term in the general sense. | | The "general sense" would have been machine language on more than just | the 704. Pointing to assembler code as an example of machine language | just makes you look less than Frank. | | >Here, the intent was to point out that the algorithm was not first | >implemented in Algol. | | Which is totally irrelevant to the issues in dispute. Which it isn't. See above.
From: Dan Nagle on 17 May 2010 09:36 Hello, On 2010-05-17 06:26:35 -0400, Colin Paul Gloster <Colin_Paul_Gloster(a)ACM.org> said: > They certainly are. He uses code based on LAPACK. If you are aware of > Fortran bindings to GPUs which you would care to inform me of, then I > could mention to him. Maybe he already knows about them, maybe not, > but I have already informed you of the reason he gave for advocating > C. There is a standard way of calling C functions from Fortran. It is considered an important feature of Fortran 2003, and is widely implemented. Therefore, the I-need-a-C-library reason for not using Fortran is not very strong (nor is that a very strong reason for not using Ada). Of course, YMMV. People make emotional decisions, and then backfill with rational (sounding) reasons. -- Cheers! Dan Nagle
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. |