Why is Ada considered "too specialized" for scientific use
in [ADA]
|
From: Robert A Duff on 5 Apr 2010 20:38 "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma(a)12000.org> writes: > Then to get the element at index 5, one needs to write something like > Element(V,5). > > Is there a way to redefine this so one need to only write V(5) ? Not yet. There is a proposal for this for Ada 2012. And some other useful syntactic sugar. - Bob
From: robin on 5 Apr 2010 21:18 "none" <none(a)none.net> wrote in message news:pan.2010.04.05.20.51.46.20000(a)none.net... | 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: Peter Hermann on 6 Apr 2010 05:52 Charles H. Sampson <csampson(a)inetworld.net> wrote: > Has anyone written a paper "Ada for Scientific Programming"? I http://www.ihr.uni-stuttgart.de/forschung/ada/resources_on_ada/ look into "SEE Ada"
From: Shmuel Metz on 6 Apr 2010 08:00 In <4bba8bf1$0$56418$c30e37c6(a)exi-reader.telstra.net>, on 04/06/2010 at 11:18 AM, "robin" <robin51(a)dodo.com.au> said: >No, they Who is "they"? Note the lack of a universal qualifier. Are you claiming that all algorithms were developed first in machine code, much less all algorithms developed in the 1960's and 1970's? For that matter, do you know of *any* algorithm that was first developed in machine code? I'm sure that there were some, but I'd expect them to be rare as hen's teeth and mostly limited to the 1950's and very early 1950's. -- 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: Georg Bauhaus on 6 Apr 2010 10:03
Keith Thompson schrieb: > Georg Bauhaus <rm-host.bauhaus(a)maps.futureapps.de> writes: > [...] >> C99 (note the year) has complex types, says C hasn't. Well, it >> hadn't, as some point in the last century. > [...] > > Unfortunately, the C99 standard has not yet been universally adopted. > Very few compilers fully support it. Many support most of it, > but I understand that Microsoft's compiler still supports only C90 > (with maybe a handful of C99-specific features). > > Which means that as soon as you write "#include <complex.h>", you've > limited the portability of your program. OHOH, scientific programs would require best use of your computer's resources, wouldn't they? So (1) why run scientific programs on an OS (still largely written in C AFAIK ...) that by default makes a herd of programs and services keep your computer really busy without your program running, and (2) why not use a better C compiler (if it has to be C) even on MS Windows, such as the ones listed below---if it has to be C? (I should add that the MS OS is purchased at a higher price than most alternatives, too; price was a listed as an issue.) But indeed, even though there is C in Windows NT, "Thanks for taking the time to send us your suggestion. Currently, there are no plans to implement C99 support in VS2010. Once we complete this product cycle, we will be reviewing all customer suggestions, including this one, for our future planning. "Thanks, Mark Roberts Visual C++ Team" http://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/485416/support-c99 So for scientific computing, MS C will be a less attractive choice than GNU C or Intel C, or Comeaucomputing's C on top of MS C adding C99 to MS C, or ... Or less attractive than compilers for one of the other languages such as Ada or Fortran or ... that support both fairly recent standards and computing with complex numbers. |