From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_20 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 7 Aug 91 12:18:26 GMT From: theory.TC.Cornell.EDU!lijewski@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (Mike Lijewski) Subject: Re: Ada in a C++ Interview Message-ID: <1991Aug7.121826.20660@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> List-Id: In article <1991Aug06.220725.4010@netcom.COM> jls@netcom.COM (Jim Showalter) wr ites: >yow@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Bill Yow) writes: > >>it turns out that the only people that are doing Ada >>programming of Crays happpen to be oil companies. > >Well, this is hardly something to be ashamed of (assuming this >is true)--commercial organizations using Ada by _choice_ are >even better than DoD folks using Ada. This is especially nice >*reuse. Quality/productivity. Risk reduction. EFFECTIVE OO usage. Ada/C++. * Vectorizing and tasking are orthogonal. I've vectorized and parallelized plenty of code. The first rule is always to make the code as highly vectorized as possible. Only then do you worry about parallelizing the code. The rationale being that parallelization always introduces overhead of its own, so you want the code to run as fast as possible before taking that step. My experience is that well vectorized code is both more efficient and maintainable, even on scalar machines. So the question is, are there any Ada compilers which produce highly vectorized code, on say Crays, IBM 3090s or any of the other vector machines? -- Mike Lijewski (H)607/272-0238 (W)607/254-8686 Cornell National Supercomputer Facility ARPA: mjlx@eagle.tc.cornell.edu BITNET: mjlx@cornellf.bitnet SMAIL: 25 Renwick Heights Road, Ithaca, NY 14850