From: "Nick Roberts" <Nick.Roberts@dial.pipex.com>
Subject: Re: Numerics in Ada and C++
Date: 1998/01/23
Date: 1998-01-23T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <01bd2858$9f6e9720$c0f682c1@xhv46.dial.pipex.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Pine.BSF.3.96.980123145716.16444B-100000@shell5.ba.best.com
What (numerics) flaws, please?
--
Nick Roberts
Croydon, UK
Proprietor, ThoughtWing Software; Independent Software Development
Consultant
* Nick.Roberts@dial.pipex.com * Voicemail & Fax +44 181-405 1124 *
*** Always game for a verbal joust (usually as the turkey) ***
Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote in article
<Pine.BSF.3.96.980123145716.16444B-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>...
> There is some discussion of this topic in the Ada FAQ, and I think one of
> DEC's compiler experts reports that well programmed Ada was just as fast
> as F77, given a decent compiler of course. Ada does not have the same
> aliasing problems that C and C++ have, and Ada 95, which is more
> permissive than Ada 83 in this regard, forces you to explicitly specify
> aliasing when you want it.
>
> Incidentally, I was looking for a better Fortran several years ago when I
> "discovered" Ada, after being disappointed by C++. I don't know what the
> current state of C++ compilers is wrt templates, but in 1995 it was
> abysmal. I don't think I'd switch now, even if all C++ compilers
conformed
> to the draft ISO standard. Ada 95 is just a *much* better language IMO,
> despite numerous little (and big ;-) flaws. Particularly for numerics.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1998-01-23 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1998-01-19 0:00 Numerics in Ada and C++ Harry Erwin
1998-01-23 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff
1998-01-23 0:00 ` Nick Roberts [this message]
1998-01-23 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox