Why is Ada considered "too specialized" for scientific use
in [Fortran]
|
From: robin on 5 Jun 2010 06:58 "Automatic Digital Computation" was published by NPL in 1954 and reprinted in 1955. It is the proceedings of a symposium held at NPL in March 1953. It contains reports of numeric programs being run on various computers -- solving simultaneous equations, latent roots, matrix multiplication, solution of Differetial equations, partial differential equations, statistics, computation of tables, etc. Of course, the programs were in machine code. That symposium was the third such held. The previous ones were held in June 1949 and July 1951.
From: Shmuel Metz on 6 Jun 2010 00:25 In <4c0a2e36$0$34205$c30e37c6(a)exi-reader.telstra.net>, on 06/05/2010 at 08:58 PM, Dave Frank <robin51(a)dodo.com.au> said: >Of course, the programs were in machine code. Your saying "of course" does not make it true, or even plausible. You keep refusing to actually provide evidence, or even independent claims. The last time you cited something that you claimed to have been written in machine language it turned out to have been written in assembler. -- 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: Arthur Evans Jr on 6 Jun 2010 10:53 In article <4c0b234f$1$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice(a)news.patriot.net>, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap(a)library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote: > The last time you cited something that you claimed to have > been written in machine language it turned out to have been written in > assembler. As one who was writing programs in 1957, I can assure you that the two terms were then used interchangeably. Art Evans Old Codger
From: robin on 6 Jun 2010 11:12 "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap(a)library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in message news:4c0b234f$1$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice(a)news.patriot.net... | In <4c0a2e36$0$34205$c30e37c6(a)exi-reader.telstra.net>, on 06/05/2010 | at 08:58 PM, Dave Frank <robin51(a)dodo.com.au> said: | | >Of course, the programs were in machine code. | | Your saying "of course" does not make it true, or even plausible. You | keep refusing to actually provide evidence, What don't you understand about the publication, "Automatic Digital Computation"? I've given you the publisher and the date, etc. With that information, most people can find the publication and read it.
From: J. Clarke on 6 Jun 2010 11:15
On 6/6/2010 10:53 AM, Arthur Evans Jr wrote: > In article<4c0b234f$1$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice(a)news.patriot.net>, > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz<spamtrap(a)library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote: > >> The last time you cited something that you claimed to have >> been written in machine language it turned out to have been written in >> assembler. > > As one who was writing programs in 1957, I can assure you that the two > terms were then used interchangeably. I never understood this business of making a distinction between machine language and assembler--maybe they changed things after I stopped working with assembler but in my day it was a 1:1 correspondence--you knew exactly what binary each assembly language instruction would emit, and the only practical difference was that someone who didn't have an idiot-savant ability to remember numerical codes could learn to work in assembler in a reasonable time. Perhaps he's looking for programs in microcode or something. |