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=1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_WORDY, INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,fd3a5ba6349a6060 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Nick Roberts" Subject: Re: should I be interested in ada? Date: 1999/02/22 Message-ID: <7aslfr$gpq$2@plug.news.pipex.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 447245782 References: <7a72e6$g55$1@probity.mcc.ac.uk> <36C93BB4.1429@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <7afc1o$3mi$2@plug.news.pipex.net> <7afttr$7v3$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7aganu$qsc$1@plug.news.pipex.net> <36CC11A1.C7A71642@hercii.mar.lmco.com> <7ahkn0$kab$1@plug.news.pipex.net> <36CC6AC0.25DBE56D@erols.com> <7aikfp$nhq$3@plug.news.pipex.net> <7ajkhb$dol$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7aknfn$au1$1@plug.news.pipex.net> <36CDE19E.2F1C@lanl.gov> <7ald0t$sb$1@plug.news.pipex.net> <7anl92$om3$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Organization: UUNET WorldCom server (post doesn't reflect views of UUNET WorldCom) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-02-22T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <7anl92$om3$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... |Well as I said before, more and more, I suspect you have |not written many large Fortran codes. Correct, I have written very little Fortran code (for real). What I have done is to translate an awful lot of Fortran into Ada. The catch is, though, that this was Fortran 77 (and Ada 83), and quite a few years ago. I do know Fortran 90, but mostly from an academic point of view (I study languages), and I appreciate that it is quite a different beast in many ways. I have studied a lot of languages, both specifically and in general, for many years now, as well as the various issues relating to computer languages (especially compilation). I think this has given a fair 'nose' for the issues, but, as Plato said, "that man is wisest who, like Socrates, realizes that his wisdom is worthless." I am also an opera fan (but I don't actually sing ;-). |Certainly in the |Fortran systems I have worked on, this is not "moderately |unusual" it is absolutely typical. Furthermore, this is |not a consequence of the language, but rather it is typical |of numerical codes. I think, possibly, Robert misunderstands, or maybe I didn't put it clearly. What I mean is that if you were to take a typical program - Fortran or Ada - and count up (a) the number of subprogram definitions, and then (b) the number of subprogram definitions which could have aliased parameters, and then divided (b) by (a), you would almost always get a fairly small ratio (mostly between 10% and 20% I would guess). Does anyone have any figures on this sort of thing? [...] |> It is quite possible for the compiler to generate two |> object code versions for such a subprogram (one for |> parameters definitely non-aliased, one for |> otherwise), and call the appropriate one at different |> call sites. | |Maybe possible ... practical, no! Would it really be impractical? I would appreciate anyone expanding on this point (it is important to me!)? [...] I agree with the rest of Robert's post (the substantial part). [BTW I would like to restate that I am very pleased - most gratified really - to see answers to my silly posts from the likes of Professor Dewar, a man who has a rare depth of experience in the field (of computer science and the development of programming languages). My personal philosophy is that the only way to learn is to make mistakes. To have your mistakes pointed out to you by the experts is a privilege. I say what I really think (you may have noticed ;-), and I do not give praise lightly.] ------------------------------------- Nick Roberts -------------------------------------