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-Thread: 101deb,e67cdb1dcad3c668
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: 
 gida07f3367d7,gid8d3408f8c3,gidbda4de328f,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!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>
 <4c0e130b$1$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>
Subject: Re: Why is Ada considered "too specialized" for scientific use
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 23:54:08 +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: <4c0f9d0b$0$56579$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 58.163.128.130
X-Trace: 1276091660 exi-reader.telstra.net 56579 58.163.128.130:1050
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:12495 comp.lang.fortran:26587
 comp.lang.pl1:1566
Date: 2010-06-09T23:54:08+10:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in message 
news:4c0e130b$1$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net...
| In <874gafFcadU1@mid.individual.net>, on 06/07/2010
|   at 10:08 AM, Dick Hendrickson <dick.hendrickson@att.net> said:
|
| >I think it was the successor to CRT memories.  ;)
|
| Wasn't the typical Williams-Tube memory faster than the typical drum
| memory.

A Williams tube provided storage for a small number of bits.
A drum provided large storage, typically some 500 times as much.

The access time for early Williams tubes was comparable to the worst times
for mercury delay lines.

The access time for drum was some 30 times slower than
mercury delay lines and Williams tubes.

| OTOH, you didn't have to replace the drum as often ;-)