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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,c4cb2c432feebd9d X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,c4cb2c432feebd9d X-Google-Thread: 101deb,15c6ed4b761968e6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,gid1094ba,gid101deb,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!news-feed01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net!nntp.frontiernet.net!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!newsfeeds.ihug.co.nz!ihug.co.nz!ken-transit.news.telstra.net!ken-in.news.telstra.net!news.telstra.net!news-server.bigpond.net.au!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "robin" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.pl1 References: <0ugu4e.4i7.ln@hunter.axlog.fr> <%P_cg.155733$eR6.26337@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> Subject: Re: Ada vs Fortran for scientific applications X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Message-ID: <6H9dg.10258$S7.9150@news-server.bigpond.net.au> Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 03:40:50 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 144.134.49.43 X-Complaints-To: abuse@bigpond.net.au X-Trace: news-server.bigpond.net.au 1148528450 144.134.49.43 (Thu, 25 May 2006 13:40:50 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 13:40:50 EST Organization: BigPond Internet Services Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4441 comp.lang.fortran:10229 comp.lang.pl1:1689 Date: 2006-05-25T03:40:50+00:00 List-Id: "Dick Hendrickson" wrote in message news:%P_cg.155733$eR6.26337@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > robin wrote: > > "Dick Hendrickson" wrote in message > > news:PkHcg.90575$Fs1.7198@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > > >>Ada's is surely better. Knowing that a subscript has to be > >>in range, because it's checked when a value is assigned to > >>the subscript variable, has to be more efficient than what > >>Fortran can do. In general, Fortran has to check the value > >>of the subscripts on every array reference. > > > It can do this only if it is a compiler option. > > It is not a feature the language. > > There's a ambiguous "it" in those sentences. ;) > > But, if "it" refers to Fortran, subscript bounds rules > ARE a feature of the language. Subscript bounds checking is not part of the Fortran language. > You are NEVER allowed to > execute an out-of-bounds array reference in a Fortran > program. In practice, the historical run-time cost of > checking bounds was [thought to be] too high, so compilers > either didn't do it, or did it under some sort of command > line option control. But in some languages [PL/I included] bounds checking is part of the language, and can be controlled by the programmer. Subscript checking is an important part of any program. > Dick Hendrickson