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,f1da96f850fa2d93
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1995-02-07 15:37:07 PST
Path: 
 swrinde!gatech!udel!news.mathworks.com!panix!cmcl2!thecourier.cims.nyu.edu!thecourier.cims.nyu.edu!nobody
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Another SBIR, and Ada is still missing in action
Date: 7 Feb 1995 15:10:35 -0500
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
Message-ID: <3h8k3r$2n1@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>
References: <D3EoEG.Jxu@world.std.com> <3h6565$2gr@network.ucsd.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gnat.cs.nyu.edu
Date: 1995-02-07T15:10:35-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Matt says:

GNU Ada.  But that isn't good enough yet.  We need, at minimum, GNU Ada that
comes with

        ***easy to use BLAS and LAPACK bindings ready to go***

as well as ODE integrators and minimization packages.


Matt, why not just call Fortran routines directly. GNAT implements both
pragma Import Fortran, to call Fortran routines, and pragma COnvention
FOrtran (to switch the order of subsripts on arrays). Why do you need
special bindings?

Yes, I know Dave Emery will pop up and say that we need wonderful thick
super-ada-style high level bindings, and no doubt that might be nice, but
what's wrong with just using the Fortran routines directly, can't be any
better or worse than calling such routines in Fortran after all.