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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,e28ffe0eaf31d1b6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "James B. White, III (Trey)" Subject: Re: Ada vs C++ (high-performance libraries) Date: 1997/09/09 Message-ID: <34155291.3170@osc.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 271003703 References: <34090462.4652@easystreet.com> <340C47F8.670B@osc.edu> <34150637.0@news.uni-ulm.de> Organization: Ohio Supercomputer Center Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-09-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Joerg Rodemann wrote: > I wonder how this [expression templates] will work on non-standard highend machines. High-end C++ compilers are now starting to handle templates quite well -- KCC (www.kai.com) and Cray C++, for example. The techniques use only (draft) standard C++. Indeed, C++ compilers of the recent past have been nowhere near the standard, but because of all the investment in C++, things are moving *very* quickly. The whole point is that you *can* (or *will*) get portable high-performance. You can build portable optimizations into the template library that you can't build into Fortran libraries -- or even Fortran compilers! As you say, there are issues of complexity and debugging. But the additional effort in development and quality control may be worth it for high-performance computing -- particularly if this extra effort appears at the level of library development and not application development. -- James B. White, III (Trey) Ohio Supercomputer Center trey@osc.edu Phone: (614)292-9291 Fax: (614)292-7168