From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, RATWARE_MS_HASH,RATWARE_OUTLOOK_NONAME autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,81da25fe30925578 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Nick Roberts" Subject: Re: Numerics in Ada and C++ Date: 1998/01/23 Message-ID: <01bd2858$9f6e9720$c0f682c1@xhv46.dial.pipex.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 318714907 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <1d34iv8.bgtlow7504qmN@pool-207-205-223-64.pitb.grid.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Organization: UUNet UK server (post doesn't reflect views of UUNet UK) Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-01-23T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: 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 wrote in article ... > 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.