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!news1.google.com!goblin1!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!exi-transit.telstra.net!news.telstra.net!exi-spool.telstra.net!exi-reader.telstra.net!not-for-mail
From: "robin" <robin51@dodo.com.au>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.pl1
References: <hp95j8$i29$1@speranza.aioe.org>
       <4bb9c72c$0$6990$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
       <pan.2010.04.05.20.51.46.20000@none.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>
       <m2tyrnjc5f.fsf@pushface.org>
       <4bbdf5c6$1$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>
       <4bc5a413$0$78577$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
 <4bc6e42f$2$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>
Subject: Re: Why is Ada considered  "too specialized" for scientific use
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:29:51 +1000
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3598
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
Message-ID: <4bd19a2b$0$895$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 58.163.129.28
X-Trace: 1272027692 exi-reader.telstra.net 895 58.163.129.28:1048
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:11125 comp.lang.fortran:24953
 comp.lang.pl1:1281
Date: 2010-04-23T17:29:51+10:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in message 
news:4bc6e42f$2$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net...
| In <4bc5a413$0$78577$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>, on 04/14/2010
|   at 07:27 PM, "robin" <robin51@dodo.com.au> said:
|
| >That's irrelevant.
|
| The dispute is about the development of algorithms,

No it isn't.
But if you want original development, try
1. Compilers, typically first written in 1950s in machine code.
2. Nuclear codes.
3. Computer-generated music
4. Random number generation.

| not about their
| transcription. The question of whether Ada actually developed the
| Fibonacci algorithm is highly relevant to that question.

That's complerely irrelevant.