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!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>
       <f5a9304e-e6eb-40b2-8944-a6ca4bc92b1b@q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
       <4c0a2e36$0$34205$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
       <4c0b234f$1$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>
       <hugevn02qfb@news5.newsguy.com>
       <op.vdv17504z25lew@macpro-eth1.krischik.com>
       <4c0cc11c$0$56569$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
       <huiia5$2k1$1@news.eternal-september.org>
       <op.vdxjxcnqule2fv@garhos>       <874gafFcadU1@mid.individual.net>
       <4c0e282d$0$56573$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
 <4c0f7204$2$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>
Subject: Re: Why is Ada considered "too specialized" for scientific use
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 23:47:35 +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: <4c0f9b82$0$56567$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 58.163.128.130
X-Trace: 1276091267 exi-reader.telstra.net 56567 58.163.128.130:1049
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:12493 comp.lang.fortran:26586
 comp.lang.pl1:1565
Date: 2010-06-09T23:47:35+10:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in message 
news:4c0f7204$2$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net...
| In <4c0e282d$0$56573$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>, on 06/08/2010
|   at 09:23 PM, "robin" <robin51@dodo.com.au> said:
|
| >Drum memories were't successor to anything.
|
| That part may be true.
|
| >They were intended as a cheap but fast mass-storage device.
|
| ROTF,LMAO. They were expensive and small. They were used as the main
| memories in, e.g., UNIVAC 1103, IBM 650.

They were a cheap but fast random access mass-storage device,
providing the equivalent storage of 256 mercury delay lines
at a fraction of the cost and at a fraction of the electronics.

The control for the DEUCE drum required but 12 electronic units,
whereas the associated electronics for 256 delay lines would have
required 256 units, and several rooms to house them,
along with 256 receivers and 256 transmitters.