Why is Ada considered "too specialized" for scientific use
in [Fortran]
|
From: Shmuel Metz on 6 Apr 2010 19:44 In <4bbb5386$0$56422$c30e37c6(a)exi-reader.telstra.net>, on 04/07/2010 at 01:30 AM, "robin" <robin51(a)dodo.com.au> said: >Because you cut the sentence and the one before it, >you lost the significance. No. You still don't get the significance of what you replied to. >Restoring it, we have: Bupkis. >"| Dismissing Algol as ephemeral ignores its influence and continuing >usage "| as a base of pseudo-codes. Important numerical libraries were >first "| implemented in ALgol, Read it carefully this time and note what words it doesn't contain. >"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". Then Does "No" also refer to them? Because that "No" is dead wrong. >You will also realize that it's referring to important ones, Who decides what's important? Do you believe that no important algorithms were written in the late 1950's, the 1960's and the 1970's? >and that it's disputing the claim that such libraries were first >implemented in Algol. Yes, because you're confusing existential quantifiers with universal quantifiers. >Restoring the immediately following sentence that you also cut out, Because it was irrelevant. >we see that I said: > "The numerical procedures of the General Interpretive Programme > "were written in machine code, from 1955." Which has nothing to do with the point in dispute. >Had you actually read my post, ROTF,LMAO. Too bad you didn't read your own post before replying to mine. >you would have seen that I gave reference to a important numerical >library. Strangely enough, I also noticed that it was a library, not an algorithm. I also noticed that the algorithms in it were not the only algorithms ever to be developed. >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. Algorithms that were developed on dead trees. Translations of existing algorithms are not what is 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: Shmuel Metz on 8 Apr 2010 11:27 In <m2tyrnjc5f.fsf(a)pushface.org>, on 04/07/2010 at 08:27 PM, Simon Wright <simon(a)pushface.org> said: >Wasn't Ada Augusta's first program an algorithm to compute Fibonacci >numbers? That would certainly have been in machine code. But was it a new algorithm, or merely a transcription of an algorithm that she already knew? And, more important, do you know for a fact that *Robin* knew about it? Note carefully what I asked and what I didn't ask. -- 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: Colin Paul Gloster on 13 Apr 2010 16:18 On Mon, 5 Apr 2010, Georg Bauhaus posted: |---------------------------------------------------------------------| |"[..] | | | |As Dmitry Kazakov has recently said, when Ada run-time systems | |starts addressing the properties of multicore hardware | |there is hope that it could really shine: Not just because concurrent| |sequential processes are so simple to express using Ada tasks | |---and you'd be using only language, not a mix of libraries, | |preprocessors, specialized compilers, programming conventions, | |etc. But also in case the fine grained complexity of OpenMP 3.0 | |can be bridled by simple language and a good run-time system. | |At little cost." | |---------------------------------------------------------------------| I met someone today who described himself as "an ordinary FORTRAN programmer" who advocated C for the practical reason that libraries are designed for C. He claimed that small tasks are good for multicore and large tasks are good for GPUs.
From: robin on 14 Apr 2010 05:27 "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap(a)library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in message news:4bbdf5c6$1$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice(a)news.patriot.net... | In <m2tyrnjc5f.fsf(a)pushface.org>, on 04/07/2010 | at 08:27 PM, Simon Wright <simon(a)pushface.org> said: | | >Wasn't Ada Augusta's first program an algorithm to compute Fibonacci | >numbers? That would certainly have been in machine code. | | But was it a new algorithm, or merely a transcription of an algorithm that | she already knew? That's irrelevant.
From: robin on 14 Apr 2010 05:32
"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap(a)library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in message news:4bbbc752$2$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice(a)news.patriot.net... | Who decides what's important? Do you believe that no important algorithms | were written in the late 1950's, the 1960's and the 1970's? I already pointed out that important algorithms were first written in machine code in the 1950s ; In fact, a whole suite of them -- all before they were written in Algol. |