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: 103376,6609c40f81b32989 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,9bdec20bcc7f3687 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Thread: 101deb,e67cdb1dcad3c668 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,gid8d3408f8c3,gidbda4de328f,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 10:16:55 -0500 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.pl1 From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 19:44:18 -0400 Subject: Re: Why is Ada considered "too specialized" for scientific use References: <4bb9c72c$0$6990$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <4bba8bf1$0$56418$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net> <4bbb2246$8$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <4bbb5386$0$56422$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net> Mail-Copies-To: nobody Organization: Atid/2 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-WebTV-Stationery: Standard; BGColor=black; TextColor=black Message-ID: <4bbbc752$2$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> X-Newsreader: MR/2 Internet Cruiser Edition for OS/2 v3.00.11.18 BETA/60 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.72.26.106 X-Trace: sv3-qmYzqsQvocMEVvFGzsymjwlAIY6VBAPtwvgU+GMY9aCupooQpScVliSKCNdwGjAdLeVXLYg5UMAOG1N!A8kSmcts0r1L1AE28KA/W+pwwCGOffgKQ7UmIkSQYVF6E0Ja2DzYWAUClONNBdNSo6uVHhPcLBoR!oYOzurK0Ka42H1gnp42YQwV8CnFExHY= X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 X-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 15:17:11 UTC (s01-b048) Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.mb-net.net!open-news-network.org!news.mccarragher.com!s01-b048!cyclone01.ams2.highwinds-media.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.posted.lerostechnologies!news.posted.lerostechnologies.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9934 comp.lang.fortran:22239 comp.lang.pl1:1136 Date: 2010-04-06T19:44:18-04:00 List-Id: In <4bbb5386$0$56422$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>, on 04/07/2010 at 01:30 AM, "robin" said: >Because you cut the sentence and the one before it, >you lost the significance. No. You still don't get the significance of what you replied to. >Restoring it, we have: Bupkis. >"| Dismissing Algol as ephemeral ignores its influence and continuing >usage "| as a base of pseudo-codes. Important numerical libraries were >first "| implemented in ALgol, Read it carefully this time and note what words it doesn't contain. >"No, they were first implemented in machine code, >"and later rewritten in Algol and FORTRAN." >you can see that it is patently obvious that "they" refers >to "Important Numerical libraries". Then Does "No" also refer to them? Because that "No" is dead wrong. >You will also realize that it's referring to important ones, Who decides what's important? Do you believe that no important algorithms were written in the late 1950's, the 1960's and the 1970's? >and that it's disputing the claim that such libraries were first >implemented in Algol. Yes, because you're confusing existential quantifiers with universal quantifiers. >Restoring the immediately following sentence that you also cut out, Because it was irrelevant. >we see that I said: > "The numerical procedures of the General Interpretive Programme > "were written in machine code, from 1955." Which has nothing to do with the point in dispute. >Had you actually read my post, ROTF,LMAO. Too bad you didn't read your own post before replying to mine. >you would have seen that I gave reference to a important numerical >library. Strangely enough, I also noticed that it was a library, not an algorithm. I also noticed that the algorithms in it were not the only algorithms ever to be developed. >Come to think of any numerical algorithm developed before Algol, you may >have heard of J. H. Wilkinson's work on numerical algorithms, for which >he wrote machine code from 1947. Algorithms that were developed on dead trees. Translations of existing algorithms are not what is in dispute. -- 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