Re: Fortran Myths & Disinformation Wanted

[essoft@ix.netcom.com]

Dan Tex1 wrote:

> >> Fortran can also be fairly terse, if you just use the f77 way:
> >>
> >>   function f(a, x)
> >>     g(x) = 1-a*x**2
> >>     f = sin(g(2*x)) - cos(g(x/2))
> >>   end
> >
> >That example is a little too simple to be interesting. Anyway,
> >here is the Ada 95 version:
> >
> >with Ada.Numerics.Elementary_Functions;
> >use  Ada.Numerics.Elementary_Functions;
> >
> >function F (A, X: Float) return Float is
> >
> >   function G (X: Float) return Float is
> >   begin
> >      return 1.0-A*X**2;
> >   end G;
> >begin
> >   return Sin(G(2.0*X))-Cos(G(X/2.0));
> >end F;
> >
>
> I've heard some good things about Ada.   However,  I've never seen any Ada code
> until now.   Looking at the example above though....  for simple mathematical
> manipulations at least...  I think I'll stick with Fortran.   I find the above
> Ada example to be a bit too verbose and "non-natural" to read.  Is the rest of
> the language like that?

It gets worse exponentially -- a few years back I saw a rotational dynamics problem
OOPed in ADA and in a "Fortran style**" ADA  -- thirty pages of code vs page and a
half, that would've shrunk further had it been in Fortran...  Just like a picture
is worth a thousand words, so are the little parallel code snippets that should
periodically be shipped to disciples elsewhere... after all, seeing is believing!?


**  Before giving in to the packaging urge and start hiding everything in sight in
where_in_hell_is _that damn_thing_package.  Oh yes, they love verbosity -- you're
lucky if you can find some actual code here and there...

--
Dr.B.Voh
-----------------------------------------------
Modeling * Simulation * Analysis
http://www.netcom.com/~essoft
-----------------------------------------------