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: bda4de328f,e67cdb1dcad3c668
X-Google-Attributes: gidbda4de328f,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news2.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>
       <4bbbc752$2$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>
       <4bc5a414$0$78577$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
       <4bc6e4c8$3$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>
       <4bed3524$0$67490$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
       <4bef48fb$11$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>
       <4bf10c9c$0$89663$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
 <4bf114cf$4$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>
Subject: Re: Why is Ada considered  "too specialized" for scientific use
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 01:57:53 +1000
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931
Message-ID: <4bf167de$0$89661$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 58.163.129.17
X-Trace: 1274111967 exi-reader.telstra.net 89661 58.163.129.17:1040
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:11694 comp.lang.fortran:25702
 comp.lang.pl1:1339
Date: 2010-05-18T01:57:53+10:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:4bf114cf$4$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net...
| In <4bf10c9c$0$89663$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>, on 05/17/2010
|   at 07:23 PM, "robin" <robin51@dodo.com.au> said:
|
| >It's another example of an algorithm that was first implemented in a
| >language other than Algol
|
| K3wl, David. Why do you persist in debunking claims that nobody has
| made while ignoring the actual issues in dispute?

Here it is for the n-th time :--  "none" made a claim, which I disputed
because it is wrong.  See below.
_________________________________________________
"none" <none@none.net> wrote in message news:pan.2010.04.05.20.51.46.20000@none.net...
Sent: Tuesday, 6 April 2010 6:51 AM
| On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 13:19:07 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
|
| Dismissing Algol as ephemeral ignores its influence and continuing usage
| as a base of pseudo-codes. Important numerical libraries were first
| implemented in ALgol,

No, they were first implemented in machine code,
and later rewritten in Algol and FORTRAN.
The numerical procedures of the General Interpretive Programme
were written in machine code, from 1955.

| and later translated to Fortran when Algol's
| momentum faltered.