Why is Ada considered "too specialized" for scientific use
in [Fortran]
|
From: Nomen Nescio on 15 Apr 2010 18:06 > | I know what you claimed; you have neither substantiated it > > On the contrary, I substantiated it twice. Not only did you not substantiate it, you didn't even instantiate it! Now the thread is back on-topic!
From: Shmuel Metz on 15 Apr 2010 06:04 In <4bc5a414$0$78577$c30e37c6(a)exi-reader.telstra.net>, on 04/14/2010 at 07:32 PM, "robin" <robin51(a)dodo.com.au> said: >I already pointed out that important algorithms were first written in >machine code in the 1950s I know what you claimed; you have neither substantiated it nor shown its relevance to the points in dispute. Which part of ":all" don't you understand? Why do you believe that "all" is present in sentences that clearly lack it? -- 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 15 Apr 2010 06:02 In <4bc5a413$0$78577$c30e37c6(a)exi-reader.telstra.net>, on 04/14/2010 at 07:27 PM, "robin" <robin51(a)dodo.com.au> said: >That's irrelevant. The dispute is about the development of algorithms, not about their transcription. The question of whether Ada actually developed the Fibonacci algorithm is highly relevant to that question. -- 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 15 Apr 2010 20:02 In <4bc72c60$0$78575$c30e37c6(a)exi-reader.telstra.net>, on 04/16/2010 at 01:10 AM, "robin" <robin51(a)dodo.com.au> said: >On the contrary, I substantiated it twice. No, you twice made totally irrelevant claims. Nothing that you have written has any bearing on whether algorithms were developed in Algol 60, and you haven't even substantiated the claim that important algorithms were *DEVELOPED* (NOT TRANSLATED INTO) in machine code. -- 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 Apr 2010 04:43
"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap(a)library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in message news:4bc7a92c$7$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice(a)news.patriot.net... | In <4bc72c60$0$78575$c30e37c6(a)exi-reader.telstra.net>, on 04/16/2010 | at 01:10 AM, "robin" <robin51(a)dodo.com.au> said: | | >On the contrary, I substantiated it twice. | | No, you twice made totally irrelevant claims. Nothing that you have | written has any bearing on whether algorithms were developed in Algol 60, | and you haven't even substantiated the claim that important algorithms | were *DEVELOPED* Had you actually read what I wrote in my first post in this thread, you would have comprehended that I said "first IMPLEMENTED in machine code" (emphasis added). And I twice substantiated my claim. |