Why is Ada considered "too specialized" for scientific use
in [ADA]
|
From: Georg Bauhaus on 8 Apr 2010 14:34 On 4/8/10 6:40 PM, Warren wrote: > Speaking of 2005, I wouldn't mind acquiring a book on > the essential elements of the 2005 features in Ada, > [...] > > There must be a digestable summary on the net somewhere. > Resources? The Ada Rationale would be one such resource. http://www.adaic.org/standards/rationale05.html
From: Charmed Snark on 8 Apr 2010 16:13 Georg Bauhaus expounded in news:4bbe21b1$0$6759$9b4e6d93 @newsspool3.arcor-online.net: > On 4/8/10 6:40 PM, Warren wrote: > >> Speaking of 2005, I wouldn't mind acquiring a book on >> the essential elements of the 2005 features in Ada, >> [...] >> >> There must be a digestable summary on the net somewhere. >> Resources? > > The Ada Rationale would be one such resource. > http://www.adaic.org/standards/rationale05.html Thanks. Someone else emailed me about that as well, and so I went back and took a more serious look at it (my lazy- my bad). There is indeed a good summary of the change there. Some very happy changes in there! Warren
From: Colin Paul Gloster on 13 Apr 2010 16:31 On Sun, 4 Apr 2010, Andrea Taverna suggested: |------------------------------------------------------------------------------| |"On 4 Apr, 06:46, "Nasser M. Abbasi" <n...(a)12000.org> wrote: | |> I was browsing the net for scientific software written in Ada, and came | |> across this strange statement: | |> | |> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/329/lectures/node7.html | |> | |> "Scientific programming languages | |> What is the best high-level language to use for scientific programming? | |> This, unfortunately, is a highly contentious question. Over the years, | |> literally hundreds of high-level languages have been developed. However, few| |> have stood the test of time. Many languages (e.g., Algol, Pascal, Haskell) | |> can be dismissed as ephemeral computer science fads. Others (e.g., Cobol, | |> Lisp, Ada) are too specialized to adapt for scientific use. | |> | |> ...... | |> | |> The remaining options are FORTRAN 77 and C. I have chosen to use C " | |> | |> I find this strange, because I think Ada can be the best programming | |> language for numerical work. So, I do not know why the author above thinks | |> Ada is "too specialized to adapt for scientific use". Is there something in| |> Ada which makes it hard to use for scientific programming? | |> | |> The main problem I see with Ada for scientific use is that it does not have | |> as nearly as many packages and functions ready to use output of the box for | |> this, other than that, the language itself I think is better than Fortran | |> and C for scientific work. | |> | |> (the above quote is from a course on Computational Physics at University of | |> Texas at Austin, may be I should write to the professor and ask him why he | |> said that, but I am not sure I'll get an answer, my experience is that most | |> professors do not answer email :) | |> | |> --Nasser | | | |In my infinitely small experience with Ada as a CS student and self- | |taught practitioner I have to say that's mostly "FUD"." | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------| Agreed. |------------------------------------------------------------------------------| |"[..] | |This is not the reason for which the languages above are used, but | |it's the explanation given for not trying the alternatives. | | | |<rant> | |The only true reason for which Ada or other languages aren't used is, | |as you said, the amount of available software directly usable in those | |languages, which depends on the popularity of the language itself, | |which, in turn, depends on the ease with which the language can be | |implemented in popular architectures (x86 PC). This more or less dates | |back to Unix and C being the ultimate computer viruses (cfr. "The Unix | |Haters Handbook") ... </rant>" | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------| No. Someone who works predominantly as something else (such as a physicist) lacks the confidence; time; motivation; background; understanding; and skills to waste time learning another language. It would be better that the one language which an incidental programmer did not become completely scared of was Ada, but few incidental programmers would be taught such a good language to begin with, and few incidental programmers will try a second language.
From: Charles H. Sampson on 14 Apr 2010 12:00 Colin Paul Gloster <Colin_Paul_Gloster(a)ACM.org> wrote: > On Sun, 4 Apr 2010, Andrea Taverna suggested: > > |------------------------------------------------------------------------- > |----- "On 4 Apr, 06:46, "Nasser M. Abbasi" <n...(a)12000.org> wrote: > | <rant> > | The only true reason for which Ada or other languages aren't used is, as > | you said, the amount of available software directly usable in those > | languages, which depends on the popularity of the language itself, > | which, in turn, depends on the ease with which the language can be > | implemented in popular architectures (x86 PC). This more or less dates > | back to Unix and C being the ultimate computer viruses (cfr. "The Unix > | Haters Handbook") ... </rant>" > |------------------------------------------------------------------------- > |----- > > No. Someone who works predominantly as something else (such as a > physicist) lacks the confidence; time; motivation; background; > understanding; and skills to waste time learning another language. It > would be better that the one language which an incidental programmer did > not become completely scared of was Ada, but few incidental programmers > would be taught such a good language to begin with, and few incidental > programmers will try a second language. I agree with the point of your response but not your choice of words. Most of us here would not use the phrase "waste time to learn another language [Ada]." :-) Charlie -- All the world's a stage, and most of us are desperately unrehearsed. Sean O'Casey
From: Colin Paul Gloster on 14 Apr 2010 15:18
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Charles H. Sampson wrote: |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |"Colin Paul Gloster <Colin_Paul_Gloster(a)ACM.org> wrote: | | | |> On Sun, 4 Apr 2010, Andrea Taverna suggested: | |> | |> |-------------------------------------------------------------------------| |> |----- "On 4 Apr, 06:46, "Nasser M. Abbasi" <n...(a)12000.org> wrote: | |> | <rant> | |> | The only true reason for which Ada or other languages aren't used is, as| |> | you said, the amount of available software directly usable in those | |> | languages, which depends on the popularity of the language itself, | |> | which, in turn, depends on the ease with which the language can be | |> | implemented in popular architectures (x86 PC). This more or less dates | |> | back to Unix and C being the ultimate computer viruses (cfr. "The Unix | |> | Haters Handbook") ... </rant>" | |> |-------------------------------------------------------------------------| |> |----- | |> | |> No. Someone who works predominantly as something else (such as a | |> physicist) lacks the confidence; time; motivation; background; | |> understanding; and skills to waste time learning another language. It | |> would be better that the one language which an incidental programmer did | |> not become completely scared of was Ada, but few incidental programmers | |> would be taught such a good language to begin with, and few incidental | |> programmers will try a second language. | | | | I agree with the point of your response but not your choice of | |words. Most of us here would not use the phrase "waste time to learn | |another language [Ada]." :-)" | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| Okay, to put it another way: a computer scientist would not waste time learning another language. Someone who is never going to be good at programming because it is a marginal issue for THAT person does not have enough of a reason to try to learn another language. For example, I use a pen and a keyboard and I do not do much fancy writing so I have enough of a reason to learn how to be a calligrapher. I do not give many speeches, so I have not taken lessons on oration. A politician might substantially benefit from lessons on oration, and though might find a better language in Ada, would not really need to be much of a software developer. I strained to listen to Tullio Vardanega trying to speak when he was giving a presentation at a conference. It would be good for him to take lessons on oration: but if he had to choose between learning to be audible or defining RAVENSCAR, which would you have preferred him to do? |