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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,90c3c79963d78580 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-05-11 03:58:27 PST Path: archiver1.sj.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.mesh.ad.jp!sjc-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!iad-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!kilgallen From: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Numerical Computation and Ada95 Message-ID: <3RmTMK7qwsTH@eisner.encompasserve.org> References: <9dc4sh$ru5$1@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr> <3AF9E3BF.D6D73BEA@linuxchip.demon.co.uk> <9dd9tb$1o56$1@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr> <3AFAF555.F534480E@lmtas.lmco.com> Organization: LJK Software Date: 11 May 2001 06:58:21 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.44.122.34 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 989578704 216.44.122.34 (Fri, 11 May 2001 10:58:24 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 10:58:24 GMT Xref: archiver1.sj.google.com comp.lang.ada:7385 Date: 2001-05-11T06:58:21-05:00 List-Id: In article <3AFAF555.F534480E@lmtas.lmco.com>, Gary Scott writes: > As an F95 programmer, I don't think that for most applications the > performance difference between these languages will be significantly > different if you limit the code to easily optimizable constructs. > However, it is my impression that Fortran compiler vendors have > traditionally been much more obsessed with performance issues and I'm > certain that the standards committee designs nearly everything > obsessively with performance issues in mind (i.e. not "expressivity" of > language constructs). Whereas I was under the impression that the Fortran standard had recently added "pointer" constructs, the bane of optimization everywhere.