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,c4cb2c432feebd9d X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,c4cb2c432feebd9d X-Google-Thread: 101deb,15c6ed4b761968e6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,gid1094ba,gid101deb,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!sn-xt-sjc-04!sn-xt-sjc-09!sn-post-sjc-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.pl1 Subject: Re: Ada vs Fortran for scientific applications Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 16:39:07 -0300 Organization: Atid/2 Message-ID: <447615eb$10$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> References: <0ugu4e.4i7.ln@hunter.axlog.fr> <%P_cg.155733$eR6.26337@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> <6H9dg.10258$S7.9150@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <1hfv5wb.1x4ab1tbdzk7eN%nospam@see.signature> <4475982a$9$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <1hfvver.ahdy9h1018b36N%nospam@see.signature> Mail-Copies-To: nobody X-CompuServe-Customer: Yes X-Coriate: interspeed.co.nz X-Ecrate: tanandtanlawyers.com X-Pose: George Cox X-Punge: Micro$oft X-Sanguinate: The MVS Guy X-Terminate: SPA(GIS) X-Tinguish: Mark Griffith X-Treme: C&C,DWS X-Newsreader: MR/2 Internet Cruiser Edition for OS/2 v2.67/60 X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4473 comp.lang.fortran:10257 comp.lang.pl1:1715 Date: 2006-05-25T16:39:07-03:00 List-Id: In <1hfvver.ahdy9h1018b36N%nospam@see.signature>, on 05/25/2006 at 08:09 AM, nospam@see.signature (Richard E Maine) said: >It was mentioned multiple times previously in the thread... oh, but >you are probably posting from the pl1 group, which wasn't in that >part of the thread. True, but I believe that the comment applies just as much to Ada as it does to FORTRAN. >as I have him kill-filed. Your filters, your rules. I have one of the FORTRAN trolls filtered[1]. >Pretty much all compilers have a bounds checking option; most of >them have it of by default. Again, that is true for FORTRAN but is not true for compilers of languages for which bounds checking is part of the semantics. [1] I won't identify him, but I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the FORTRAN regulars have him filtered as well. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org