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

[cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter)]

On Tue, 18 May 2010 01:57:53 +1000, "robin" <robin51@dodo.com.au>
wrote:

>"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.

You appear to be misreading "Important numerical libraries were
first implemented in ALgol".  The quoted text can be read in
either of two ways:

(1) "All important numerical libraries were ..."
(2) "There were important numerical libraries that were ..."

In short, the quoted text can be read either as "some" or as
"all", depending on context.  The natural reading is "some".
Indeed, your "refutation" requires "some".  

The general facts are that prior to the creation of fortran and
algol, almost all important numerical libraries were implemented
either in machine language or in assembly language.  Afterwards
most were implemented in higher level languages.

All of that said, it is a bit misleading to say that libraries
were first implemented in Algol and later translated to Fortran.
Some were, that is true.  For the most part, however, libraries
were developed independently in the two languages.



   
Richard Harter, cri@tiac.net
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
It's not much to ask of the universe that it be fair;
it's not much to ask but it just doesn't happen.