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-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,gid8d3408f8c3,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!weretis.net!feeder2.news.weretis.net!news.teledata-fn.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 08:43:31 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm-host.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US;
 rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Why is Ada considered  "too specialized" for scientific use
References: <hp95j8$i29$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <4bb9c72c$0$6990$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <lnaathetnk.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>
 <4bbb3f22$0$7660$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <hpg3ts0247v@news6.newsguy.com>
 <4bbba9b4$0$6987$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <hph1p3016p8@news5.newsguy.com>
In-Reply-To: <hph1p3016p8@news5.newsguy.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <4bbc2994$0$6992$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 07 Apr 2010 08:43:32 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: db7792e9.newsspool4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=]hV0DaC7h4>RLigj];iP=84IUK<Cl32<14Fo<]lROoR18kF<OcfhCO;0EgZNDi?V7:PCY\c7>ejV8LTFfGUoDj\6ERZQb`FAk><
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:10877 comp.lang.fortran:24531
Date: 2010-04-07T08:43:32+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 4/7/10 6:25 AM, J. Clarke wrote:

> Look, you were whining about "MS C" not implementing a complex data type.

Did I?  I didn't. I remember saying that even in 2006 (from which
the note in question dates) there were well enough compilers
supporting C99 on Windows NT.

If VC2010 doesn't support C99, as reported, then still this perceived
lack would not have been a reason to dismiss C just for lack of a
complex data type.  And in fact, VS2005, which was available in 2006,
does not have <complex.h> for C.  VC++ does support <complex>,
but enough harm has been done in assuming that writing C using
a C++ compiler is a good idea.

> Well Visual C++ 2008, which is the only "MS C" in current production,
> most assuredly DOES implement a standards-compliant complex data type,
> so I don't really understand the point of your complaint.

My complaint, or observation, is that more than one researcher
talking about programming languages tends to act as a show man
when he or she does not really (need to) know what he or she is
talking about.  This creates gossip, perpetuates hearsay, and,
by imitation, drives the choice of programming language for
research.  Obviously then, decisions to use this or that language
will not be as informed as could be.  Chances are that program
quality suffers. I hope this observation can be shown to be wrong.