Why is Ada considered "too specialized" for scientific use
in [Fortran]
|
From: Shmuel Metz on 18 Apr 2010 13:15 In <4bc97500$0$78577$c30e37c6(a)exi-reader.telstra.net>, on 04/17/2010 at 06:43 PM, "robin" <robin51(a)dodo.com.au> said: >Had you actually read what I wrote in my first post in this thread, I did; it was both irrelevant and unsubstantiated. >you would have comprehended that I said "first IMPLEMENTED in machine >code" See above. >And I twice substantiated my claim. No; you neither identified the algorithms to which you were referring nor demonstrated that they had not previously been implemented on, e.g., dead trees, mechanical calculators. -- 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 22 Apr 2010 05:59 In <4bcfaa84$0$895$c30e37c6(a)exi-reader.telstra.net>, on 04/22/2010 at 11:39 AM, "robin" <robin51(a)dodo.com.au> said: >You're wrong on both counts. 1. You have not addressed the question of whether Algol was used to develop algorithms. Even had you *shown* that other languages had been used earlier or more often, that would have not addrssed the issue in dispute. 2. You cited a book describing multiple algorithms; you refused to identify specific algorithms about which you were making claims. 3. You profused to show that the unspecified algorithms about which you made claims had not already been in use. -- 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 23 Apr 2010 03:29 "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap(a)library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in message news:4bc6e42f$2$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice(a)news.patriot.net... | 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, No it isn't. But if you want original development, try 1. Compilers, typically first written in 1950s in machine code. 2. Nuclear codes. 3. Computer-generated music 4. Random number generation. | not about their | transcription. The question of whether Ada actually developed the | Fibonacci algorithm is highly relevant to that question. That's complerely irrelevant.
From: J. Clarke on 23 Apr 2010 12:14 On 4/23/2010 3:29 AM, robin wrote: > "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz"<spamtrap(a)library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in message > news:4bc6e42f$2$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice(a)news.patriot.net... > | 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, > > No it isn't. > But if you want original development, try > 1. Compilers, typically first written in 1950s in machine code. I think that's a very solid case--there was no need for such a thing before there was machine code so there was no incentive for anybody to even look for the necessary algorithms, although some of the pieces may have had prior development, and you can't use a high level language until you have a working compiler for it (although I understand that in some cases the "compiler" was a grad student). > 2. Nuclear codes. Were the algorithms they used developed to be used on computers or were they computer implementations of the hand and card-machine algorithms that were used during the development of the bomb? Los Alamos didn't have a mechanical computer you know--"computer" at Los Alamos was a job title--but they did have a room full of punch-card machines and a group of teenagers doing amazing things with them. > 3. Computer-generated music Don't know anything about that. > 4. Random number generation. How were random numbers generated before computers? Did they not have viable algorithms for the purpose? > > | not about their > | transcription. The question of whether Ada actually developed the > | Fibonacci algorithm is highly relevant to that question. > > That's complerely irrelevant. > >
From: Gary L. Scott on 22 Apr 2010 08:49
On 4/22/2010 4:59 AM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote: > In<4bcfaa84$0$895$c30e37c6(a)exi-reader.telstra.net>, on 04/22/2010 > at 11:39 AM, "robin"<robin51(a)dodo.com.au> said: > >> You're wrong on both counts. > > 1. You have not addressed the question of whether Algol was used > to develop algorithms. Even had you *shown* that other languages > had been used earlier or more often, that would have not addrssed > the issue in dispute. > > 2. You cited a book describing multiple algorithms; you refused to > identify specific algorithms about which you were making claims. > > 3. You profused to show that the unspecified algorithms about which > you made claims had not already been in use. > Children, children! |