Re: Why is Ada considered "too specialized" for scientific use

[Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>]

Keith Thompson schrieb:
> Georg Bauhaus <rm-host.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de> writes:
> [...]
>> C99 (note the year) has complex types,  says C hasn't.  Well, it
>> hadn't, as some point in the last century.
> [...]
> 
> Unfortunately, the C99 standard has not yet been universally adopted.
> Very few compilers fully support it.  Many support most of it,
> but I understand that Microsoft's compiler still supports only C90
> (with maybe a handful of C99-specific features).
> 
> Which means that as soon as you write "#include <complex.h>", you've
> limited the portability of your program.

OHOH, scientific programs would require best use of your
computer's resources, wouldn't they?  So

(1) why run scientific programs on an OS (still largely written in C
AFAIK ...) that by default makes a herd of programs and services keep
your computer really busy without your program running, and

(2) why not use a better C compiler (if it has to be C) even on
MS Windows, such as the ones listed below---if it has to be C?

(I should add that the MS OS is purchased at a higher price
than most alternatives, too; price was a listed as an issue.)

But indeed, even though there is C in Windows NT,

"Thanks for taking the time to send us your suggestion. Currently, there are
no plans to implement C99 support in VS2010. Once we complete this product
cycle, we will be reviewing all customer suggestions, including this one, for
our future planning.

"Thanks,
Mark Roberts
Visual C++ Team"

http://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/485416/support-c99


So for scientific computing, MS C will be a less attractive choice
than GNU C or Intel C, or Comeaucomputing's C on top of MS C adding
C99 to MS C, or ...

Or less attractive than compilers for one of the other
languages such as Ada or Fortran or ... that support both fairly recent
standards and computing with complex numbers.