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-Thread: 103376,a9bbfb8cd49f1a51 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!proxad.net!nerim.net!aotearoa.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!skynet.be!newspost001!tjb!not-for-mail Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:31:01 +0200 From: Adrien Plisson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: fr-fr, fr-be, fr, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Isn't this in favour of Ada?? References: <42d64dde$0$64794$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk> <42e0a2a6$0$36943$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk> <42e0cd67$0$37532$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk> <42E102A9.5060707@mailinator.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <42e4e8ea$0$3948$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be> Organization: -= Belgacom Usenet Service =- NNTP-Posting-Host: fd0dea41.news.skynet.be X-Trace: 1122298090 news.skynet.be 3948 81.246.250.140:3029 X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@skynet.be Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3752 Date: 2005-07-25T15:31:01+02:00 List-Id: Tassilo v. Parseval wrote: > I don't think that Ada tasks and MPI are comparable. MPI is mainly used > in the fields of supercomputing. You would certainly not use it as a > fork or threads replacement (incidentally, the 1.x standard of MPI did > not allow to create processes dynamically) because it would just be too > painful. the Ada tasking model may be regarded as a form of MPI, when MPI is taken in its broader form of "message passing interface". but MPI taken in its narrower form of "MPI standard " is more closely related to Ada Distributed Annex, with which it shares a lot of features, including all those cited below: > On the other hand it offers things not present in Ada tasks. MPI has its > own datatypes that allow you to specify in detail which parts of a > data-structure to send to another process, where the appropriate > conversions are done by MPI's pack routines. If you have a matrix with > rank 100,000 you don't want to share it all and in Ada you'd explicitely > have to take precautions against that. > > Furthermore, MPI allows you to write a program that does a calculation > in parallel on your computer and, say, NEC's earth simulator because > data-exchange between processors can happen over TCP/IP. So MPI really > is a way to distribute one application across a huge distributed system > involving workstations that can be anywhere on the internet. all this should be posible with the Ada distributed annex (annex E of the Ada 95 Reference Manual). a free implementation of this annex for the GNAT compiler is available under the name "Glade" (which is not to be confused with the Gtk+ GUI builder). > Also, there are MPI bindings for Ada which wouldn't be the case if those > two had the same niches in mind. strange enough when one knows about annex E. i think it exists for inter-operability between softwares written using different languages. (Annex E is kinda Ada'ish). (side note: shouldn't PolyORB provide a personality which would allow an Ada Annex E enabled application to inter-operate with a MPI enabled amplication ?) -- rien