* Simple algorithmic question I hope :-) @ 1999-10-24 0:00 SPick60809 1999-10-24 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-10-24 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 2 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: SPick60809 @ 1999-10-24 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Hi I'm a student studying ADA for the first time and need help to produce an algorithm to complete a basic program exercise I am stuck with. The program asks the user to input a large number (integer) and then input two further numbers as factors of the first; the program then checks the two numbers to see if they are indeed factors and outputs 'true' or 'false' accordingly. I cannot figure an algorithm to do this and am left with an idea that:- large number/factor number=integer would work, checking that the factor divides without remainder i.e. .0.8 etc. This does not work, telling me not to assign value to 'integer' I hope there is a simple solution I have'nt seen and would be greatfull if someone could point me that way :-) I would be very interested to know, also, if there is an online source listing various algorithms of a similar nature/maths level. Regards and thanx Sean ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-) 1999-10-24 0:00 Simple algorithmic question I hope :-) SPick60809 @ 1999-10-24 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-10-24 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-10-24 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <19991023203630.01992.00000385@ng-fa1.aol.com>, spick60809@aol.com (SPick60809) wrote: > Hi > > I'm a student studying ADA for the first time and need help to produce an > algorithm to complete a basic program exercise I am stuck with. But surely part of the excercise is to have YOU figure out the algorithm. At least it seems reasonable to suppose that is the excercise, rather than being an excercise in how to use the web to get other people to think up the algorithm for you :-) Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-) 1999-10-24 0:00 Simple algorithmic question I hope :-) SPick60809 1999-10-24 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-10-24 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-10-25 0:00 ` SPick60809 1 sibling, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-10-24 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <19991023203630.01992.00000385@ng-fa1.aol.com>, spick60809@aol.com (SPick60809) wrote: > This does not work, telling me not to assign > value to 'integer' Now that sounds like you have some fundamental misconception about Ada (that's the spelling by the way, it is a woman's name, not an acronym, so unless you call your girlfriend, for example, JENNIFER, rather than Jennifer, you should spell it as Ada :-) Here is a place where we definitely can help, post your code that is giving you the error message you do not understand, make as small example as possible, and you will find that you rapidly get a response pointing you in the direction of fixing whatever misunderstanding you have of Ada (this is after all an Ada group, your original question about the algorithm appears to have nothing whatsoever to do with Ada!) Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-) 1999-10-24 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-10-25 0:00 ` SPick60809 1999-10-25 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 0 siblings, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread From: SPick60809 @ 1999-10-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > (that's the spelling by the way, it is a woman's name, >not an acronym, so unless you call your girlfriend, for example, >JENNIFER, rather than Jennifer, you should spell it as Ada :-) I asked for help with my problem in programming, not a lesson in spelling which is, by the way,is taken as not done in usenet circles! I also purposely kept the code query simple, I'm sorry you did not understand this, shame. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-) 1999-10-25 0:00 ` SPick60809 @ 1999-10-25 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 1999-10-25 0:00 ` Robert A Duff 0 siblings, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 1999-10-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <19991025071337.29192.00000857@ng-fa1.aol.com>, spick60809@aol.com (SPick60809) wrote: > >JENNIFER, rather than Jennifer, you should spell it as Ada :-) > > I asked for help with my problem in programming, not a lesson in > spelling which is, by the way,is taken as not done in usenet circles! Whatever folks do in *other* usenet circles notwithstanding, we are very senstive here about folks getting the capitalization of the language correct here. Call it a group pathology if you want, but posting "ADA" here is guaranteed to earn you a correction. You did it, you got your corection, now lets move on... > I also purposely kept the code query simple, I'm sorry you did not Well, yes. But that's the problem. If you were to perhaps post the *actual* line of code that the compiler doesn't like, along with the *atual* error message, there's a good change we could tell you what's actually going on. Without that information, we're just as lost as you. -- T.E.D. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-) 1999-10-25 0:00 ` Ted Dennison @ 1999-10-25 0:00 ` Robert A Duff 1999-10-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Robert A Duff @ 1999-10-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> writes: > Whatever folks do in *other* usenet circles notwithstanding, we are very ^^ > senstive here about folks getting the capitalization of the language > correct here. Speak for yourself. I'm sick and tired of reading discussions about how to capitalize Ada, and I think it makes Ada folks look like a bunch of nitpicking pedants, who have nothing better to do than ... Sheesh. At least Robert's correction was humorous, rather than pedantic sounding (so I'm not sure why the original poster chose to take offense (and then ignored the *rest* of Robert's post)). >... Call it a group pathology if you want, ... OK. It's a group pathology. ;-) - Bob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-) 1999-10-25 0:00 ` Robert A Duff @ 1999-10-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-10-28 0:00 ` Robert A Duff 1999-10-26 0:00 ` Vladimir Olensky 1999-10-26 0:00 ` Aidan Skinner 2 siblings, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-10-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <wccg0yzb1v3.fsf@world.std.com>, Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com> wrote: > Speak for yourself. I'm sick and tired of reading discussions > about how to capitalize Ada, and I think it makes Ada folks > look like a bunch of nitpicking pedants, who have nothing > better to do than ... > > Sheesh. I like people to know that the first programmer was a woman, and that the language honors her contribution. I think that's worthwhile general knowledge :-) Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-) 1999-10-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-10-28 0:00 ` Robert A Duff 0 siblings, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Robert A Duff @ 1999-10-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes: > I like people to know that the first programmer was a woman, > and that the language honors her contribution. I think that's > worthwhile general knowledge :-) Good point. - Bob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-) 1999-10-25 0:00 ` Robert A Duff 1999-10-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-10-26 0:00 ` Vladimir Olensky 1999-10-26 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 1999-10-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-10-26 0:00 ` Aidan Skinner 2 siblings, 2 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Vladimir Olensky @ 1999-10-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert A Duff wrote in message ... >Speak for yourself. I'm sick and tired of reading discussions about how >to capitalize Ada, and I think it makes Ada folks look like a bunch of >nitpicking pedants, who have nothing better to do than ... You are not alone in this club. But what is nice that Ada itself does not complain when encounter for instance ADA.Text_IO instead of Ada.Text_IO :-) Could you imagine error message or warning something like this: with ADA.Text_IO; >>>Warning: Please, call me Ada if you want me to work for you Regards, Vladimir Olensky ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-) 1999-10-26 0:00 ` Vladimir Olensky @ 1999-10-26 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 1999-10-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-10-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-10-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 2 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 1999-10-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <s1behln8gbb16@corp.supernews.com>, "Vladimir Olensky" <vladimir_olensky@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Could you imagine error message or warning something like this: > with ADA.Text_IO; > >>>Warning: Please, call me Ada if you want me to work for you Perhaps Gnat could hook this into the gcc "-pedantinc" flag. :-) -- T.E.D. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-) 1999-10-26 0:00 ` Ted Dennison @ 1999-10-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-10-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-10-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7v4nt8$alf$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote: > > Perhaps Gnat could hook this into the gcc "-pedantinc" flag. You mean of course -pedantic (with this option, you really should spell it right :-) In fact we decided not to use -pedantic for GNAT. Instead the default is strictly standard (which is what -pedantic means), and then the switch -gnatX enables language extensions (currently the only one is with type). Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-) 1999-10-26 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 1999-10-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-10-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-10-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7v4nt8$alf$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote: > > Perhaps Gnat could hook this into the gcc "-pedantinc" flag. You mean of course -pedantic (with this option, you really should spell it right :-) In fact we decided not to use -pedantic for GNAT. Instead the default is strictly standard (which is what -pedantic means), and then the switch -gnatX enables language extensions (currently the only one is with type). Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-) 1999-10-26 0:00 ` Vladimir Olensky 1999-10-26 0:00 ` Ted Dennison @ 1999-10-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-10-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <s1behln8gbb16@corp.supernews.com>, "Vladimir Olensky" <vladimir_olensky@yahoo.com> wrote: > Could you imagine error message or warning something like this: > with ADA.Text_IO; > >>>Warning: Please, call me Ada if you want me to work > for you > It is easy to imagine :-) in -gnatg mode (the mode we use internally at ACT to enforce all sorts of style rules), GNAT will say: 1. with ADA.Text_IO; | >>> (style) bad identifier casing, should be "Ada" This actually is a consistency check, and reflects our rule that all identifiers must have the same case as the defining occurrence which in this case is of course spelled properly! Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-) 1999-10-25 0:00 ` Robert A Duff 1999-10-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-10-26 0:00 ` Vladimir Olensky @ 1999-10-26 0:00 ` Aidan Skinner 1999-10-28 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 2 siblings, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread From: Aidan Skinner @ 1999-10-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On Mon, 25 Oct 1999 20:51:28 GMT, Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com> wrote: >Speak for yourself. I'm sick and tired of reading discussions about how >to capitalize Ada, and I think it makes Ada folks look like a bunch of >nitpicking pedants, who have nothing better to do than ... Given the number of posts to the team-ada mailing list thinking it's about *either* the American Dental Associatian *or* the American Disabilities Assoc. I think that the capitalisation is important. Especially as one is very definately correct and one very definately incorrect. There have even been people posting to cla confused about what exactly we talk about in comp.lang.* ;) This isn't just to make the group easier for the particpants to read, but also to make it easier for people to find the information that they're looking for. - Aidan -- "I say we just bury him and eat dessert" http://www.skinner.demon.co.uk/aidan/ OpenPGP Key Fingerprint: 9858 33E6 C755 7D34 B5C5 316D 9274 1343 FBE6 99D9 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-) 1999-10-26 0:00 ` Aidan Skinner @ 1999-10-28 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 1999-10-28 0:00 ` Nick Roberts ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 1999-10-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <slrn81bp1a.1bb.aidan@skinner.demon.co.uk>, aidan@skinner.demon.co.uk wrote: > On Mon, 25 Oct 1999 20:51:28 GMT, Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com> wrote: > > >Speak for yourself. I'm sick and tired of reading discussions about > >how to capitalize Ada, and I think it makes Ada folks look like a > >bunch of nitpicking pedants, who have nothing better to do than ... > > Given the number of posts to the team-ada mailing list thinking it's > about *either* the American Dental Associatian *or* the American > Disabilities Assoc. I think that the capitalisation is Putting on my ameteur psychoanalist cap (a rather bizzare-looking fedora, if you must know), I think there's much more to it than that. In the early days of computing, language names tended to be acronyms. Perhaps part of this had to do with the larger hand the US DoD used to have in the development of languages, as they tend to be overly fond of acronyms. Whatever the reason, sometime around the introduction of Pascal the fashion changed. Now languages tend to be named after people or things. Anyway, I think a lot of readers here tend to be innundated in RL by hecklers who like to misapprehend Ada as an old, obsolete military language, with no significance in today's world. Often such folks tend to insist on capitalizing it "ADA". So its a sort of knee-jerk reaction to immediately "correct" anyone who uses "ADA" instead of Ada. But is this reaction reasonable? Well, now lets turn our attention to the "ADA" poster. *Why* did he capitalize it this way? Could it be that he just naturally assumes all languages he doesn't know well are capitalized that way? Well, if he's an undergrad student, he was probably born in the 1977-1981 time frame. He wasn't around when acronym languages were fashionable. The vast majority of languages he has been exposed to would have been capitialized in the modern way. A sensible default, knowing nothing else, would be that it is capitalized "Ada". So that can't be it. Could he have gotten that impression from looking at the front covers of available literature? Often they will capitalize whole words on book covers for stylistic reasons. Wirth's Oberon book does that. Well, I don't claim to have a complete collection. But my manager is a bit of a book-hound, so we have 13 different Ada (83 & 95) titiles here, including both versions of the LRM. Not *one* of them uses all caps, (although one did use all lower-case :-) ). That can't be it either. The only thing we are left with is that he somehow made a mental association with Ada that placed it in the same class as the acronym languages he knows about (most likely, FORTRAN and COBOL). That means he is suffering under the misapprehension listed above. Now, assuming that is the case, I'd argue that it would be quite appropriate to try to correct this misimpression right off the bat. Not only is that attitude somewhat insulting to Ada, but it will color that person's thinking in a way that will inhibit truly learning the language. Ada is in fact a quite modern language. Trying to think of it in terms of old languages that don't have to worry about things like stacks, namespaces, nested subprograms, and concurrecnty, is going to cause the poor poster no end of troubles. -- T.E.D. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-) 1999-10-28 0:00 ` Ted Dennison @ 1999-10-28 0:00 ` Nick Roberts 1999-10-29 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 1999-10-31 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-10-28 0:00 ` Gautier 1999-10-31 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2 siblings, 2 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Nick Roberts @ 1999-10-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ted Dennison wrote: > ... > languages he knows about (most likely, FORTRAN and COBOL). That means he > ... That should be ForTran, actually. :-) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-) 1999-10-28 0:00 ` Nick Roberts @ 1999-10-29 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 1999-10-29 0:00 ` William B. Clodius 1999-10-29 0:00 ` David Starner 1999-10-31 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 2 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 1999-10-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <3818BDC9.D8CF1D3B@callnetuk.com>, Nick Roberts <nickroberts@callnetuk.com> wrote: > Ted Dennison wrote: > > ... > > languages he knows about (most likely, FORTRAN and COBOL). That means he > > ... > > That should be ForTran, actually. Yeah. And in all fairness, I believe they prefer it capitalized "Fortran" theese days (probably for the same reasons I outlined before). -- T.E.D. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-) 1999-10-29 0:00 ` Ted Dennison @ 1999-10-29 0:00 ` William B. Clodius 1999-10-30 0:00 ` Simon Wright 1999-11-02 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 1999-10-29 0:00 ` David Starner 1 sibling, 2 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: William B. Clodius @ 1999-10-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ted Dennison wrote: > <snip> > Yeah. And in all fairness, I believe they prefer it capitalized > "Fortran" theese days (probably for the same reasons I outlined before). > <snip> In 1977/1978, when FORTRAN 77 was near the end of its standardization process, ANSI developed a standard for the casing of standardized names. Under this standard pronouncable acronyms have an initial capital, but the rest lower case, and unpronounceable ones all caps. This standard was later adopted by other standardization bodies, i.e., ISO. Rather than force an additional delay in changing the text of the FORTRAN 77 standard, this rule was waived for that standard, but all subsequent Fortran standardization adapted to that rule, usually refering to previous standards using an initial 'F' followed by small caps for 'ortran'. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-) 1999-10-29 0:00 ` William B. Clodius @ 1999-10-30 0:00 ` Simon Wright 1999-11-03 0:00 ` William B. Clodius 1999-11-02 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 1 sibling, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread From: Simon Wright @ 1999-10-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) "William B. Clodius" <wclodius@lanl.gov> writes: > In 1977/1978, when FORTRAN 77 was near the end of its standardization > process, ANSI developed a standard for the casing of standardized > names. Under this standard pronouncable acronyms have an initial > capital, but the rest lower case, and unpronounceable ones all caps. > This standard was later adopted by other standardization bodies, i.e., > ISO. So one would expect Ansi and Iso, then (I can't remember anyone spelling them out, they're always pronounced as words ..) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-) 1999-10-30 0:00 ` Simon Wright @ 1999-11-03 0:00 ` William B. Clodius 0 siblings, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: William B. Clodius @ 1999-11-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Simon Wright wrote: > <snip> > So one would expect Ansi and Iso, then (I can't remember anyone > spelling them out, they're always pronounced as words ..) Are standard developing organiztions standards themselves? In any case the rule may not apply to ISO since the organization does not consider its name to be an acronym. It is officially Swiss and I know of no obvious French or German set of names that describes ISO and has the acronym ISO. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-) 1999-10-29 0:00 ` William B. Clodius 1999-10-30 0:00 ` Simon Wright @ 1999-11-02 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 1999-11-02 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread From: Wes Groleau @ 1999-11-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > ..... Under this standard pronouncable acronyms have an initial > capital, but the rest lower case, and unpronounceable ones all caps. But what puzzles me is why some (not all) make a point of writing "Fortran," yet continue to also write "COBOL" One such person has even lectured us on the "pronounceable" rule. :-) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-) 1999-11-02 0:00 ` Wes Groleau @ 1999-11-02 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-11-03 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 0 siblings, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-11-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <381F1062.A564DAFD@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com>, Wes Groleau <wwgrol@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> wrote: > But what puzzles me is why some (not all) make a point of > writing "Fortran," yet continue to also write "COBOL" One > such person has even lectured us on the "pronounceable" rule. Because, speaking as one who was once VERY involved in the COBOL world (I wrote a large chunk of what is now the Computer Associates Realia COBOL compiler for the PC), and still keep contact with it, this is standard usage. All the books on my shelf use the spelling COBOL, as do typical software products. I never see anyone in that area using the Cobol spelling. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-) 1999-11-02 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-11-03 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 0 siblings, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Wes Groleau @ 1999-11-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > COBOL .... is standard usage. > I never see anyone in that area using the Cobol spelling. Standard usage is an acceptable reason. I just hope that I don't ever again catch someone writing "COBOL" after lecturing us on the "pronounceable" rule. :-) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-) 1999-10-29 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 1999-10-29 0:00 ` William B. Clodius @ 1999-10-29 0:00 ` David Starner 1 sibling, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: David Starner @ 1999-10-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 14:03:16 GMT, Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote: >In article <3818BDC9.D8CF1D3B@callnetuk.com>, > Nick Roberts <nickroberts@callnetuk.com> wrote: >> Ted Dennison wrote: >> > ... >> > languages he knows about (most likely, FORTRAN and COBOL). That >means he >> > ... >> >> That should be ForTran, actually. > >Yeah. And in all fairness, I believe they prefer it capitalized >"Fortran" theese days (probably for the same reasons I outlined before). Technically, FORTRAN 77 and previous are all spelled FORTRAN. Fortran 90 and later are Fortran. -- David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-) 1999-10-28 0:00 ` Nick Roberts 1999-10-29 0:00 ` Ted Dennison @ 1999-10-31 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-10-31 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <3818BDC9.D8CF1D3B@callnetuk.com>, Nick Roberts <nickroberts@callnetuk.com> wrote: > Ted Dennison wrote: > > ... > > languages he knows about (most likely, FORTRAN and COBOL). That means he > > ... > > That should be ForTran, actually. > > :-) I know there is a smiley there, which may clue in the initiated, but the name of the language is of course Fortran (see the appropriate standardizing documents) Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-) 1999-10-28 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 1999-10-28 0:00 ` Nick Roberts @ 1999-10-28 0:00 ` Gautier 1999-10-31 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2 siblings, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Gautier @ 1999-10-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) A quick reflexion on Ada capitalization: at least with C they avoided (a part of) the problem... About psychanalysis and the <<Sixties forever>> trend in computing, or, how to put modern clothes (visual,OO) to old debris, I just discovered that mental regression in that area doesn't need the `++' disguisement. The true regression proudly show its '--' (I'm a totally unfair...): http://www.research.microsoft.com/~simonpj/c--.html -- Gautier _____\\________________\_______\ http://members.xoom.com/gdemont/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-) 1999-10-28 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 1999-10-28 0:00 ` Nick Roberts 1999-10-28 0:00 ` Gautier @ 1999-10-31 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-10-31 0:00 ` David Starner 1999-10-31 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle 2 siblings, 2 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-10-31 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7va4ns$898$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote: > languages he knows about (most likely, FORTRAN and COBOL). > That means he > is suffering under the misapprehension listed above. Gosh Ted, I hope you know that the name of the language is Fortran, and not FORTRAN (you know the old saying about stones and glass houses etc.) :-) Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-) 1999-10-31 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-10-31 0:00 ` David Starner 1999-11-01 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-10-31 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle 1 sibling, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread From: David Starner @ 1999-10-31 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 14:14:14 GMT, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote: >In article <7va4ns$898$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, > Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote: >> languages he knows about (most likely, FORTRAN and COBOL). >> That means he >> is suffering under the misapprehension listed above. > >Gosh Ted, I hope you know that the name of the language is >Fortran, and not FORTRAN (you know the old saying about >stones and glass houses etc.) :-) The name of the language is both FORTRAN & Fortran. FORTRAN is applied to the versions <= 77. Fortran is applied to the versions >= 90. -- David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-) 1999-10-31 0:00 ` David Starner @ 1999-11-01 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-11-03 0:00 ` William B. Clodius 0 siblings, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-11-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7vhrs6$79q1@news.cis.okstate.edu>, dvdeug@x8b4e53cd. (David Starner) wrote: > The name of the language is both FORTRAN & Fortran. FORTRAN is applied > to the versions <= 77. Fortran is applied to the versions >= 90. Well I was of course referring to the most recent version. Of course Fortran is really odd, both the 77 and 90 standards from ANSI are valid at the same time, a very peculiar situation reflecting an inability to get a real consensus that F90 represented *the* direction in which Fortran development should go. Does someone know if the ISO standard suffers the same schizophrenia? Normally there can be only one ISO standard for a language (Ada 83 is no longer an ISO standardized language). The Fortran community that I know these days typically spells the language in the modern style Fortran, rather than in the old style FORTRAN. COBOL though is almost always thus spelled in the COBOL community. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-) 1999-11-01 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-11-03 0:00 ` William B. Clodius 0 siblings, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: William B. Clodius @ 1999-11-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar wrote: > <snip> > > Well I was of course referring to the most recent version. Of > course Fortran is really odd, both the 77 and 90 standards > from ANSI are valid at the same time, a very peculiar situation > reflecting an inability to get a real consensus that F90 > represented *the* direction in which Fortran development should > go. Does someone know if the ISO standard suffers the same > schizophrenia? Normally there can be only one ISO standard for > a language (Ada 83 is no longer an ISO standardized language). > <snip> No, ISO recognized only one standard. The US appears to have been the only country that retained both standards as applicable. I believe this dual standard ended in 1996 or 1997, shortly before Fortran 95 became a standard. Politically this was justified as driven by the NIST conformance tests for Fortran 77 which was odd because 1. Fortran 90 was to all intents and purposes a superset of Fortran 77 + MIL-STD 1753. About the only problems the test code could have is if the test code were not valid, or they used a name for a procedure that was identical to one of the new intrinsics added in Fortran 90, a conflict that is easy to fix using the EXTERNAL statement and still leave the test code valid Fortran 77. 2. Most compiler implementors that I have talked to, more than half a dozen, talked about the conformance tests as if they were a joke. 3. By 1995 NIST was talking about getting out of programming language conformance testing activity. In reality it was driven by the large number of Fortran 77 vendors, more than half the total, that either could not afford to upgrade their compilers to standard conformance or wanted to focus on other areas (e.g. Watcom and C/C++) but still wanted to tout their compiler as standard conforming. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-) 1999-10-31 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-10-31 0:00 ` David Starner @ 1999-10-31 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle 1 sibling, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Richard D Riehle @ 1999-10-31 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7vhirl$92q$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote: >Gosh Ted, I hope you know that the name of the language is >Fortran, and not FORTRAN (you know the old saying about >stones and glass houses etc.) :-) It makes me happy to program in aDa because it is not case sensitive. Therefore, I say, FoRtRaN, for fortran, or FORtran, or forTRAN. Case sensitive reserved words was case sensitive identifiers sometimes provide lots of late night entertainment when someone does something such as, int INT but usually more subtle, and usually not immediately visible. In the Ada community, we do pay special homage to the late Countess of Lovelace by the convention of not turning her into some kind of ugly acronym. It is not a matter of snobbery, but an attitude of respect for her contribution. If she were alive, she might not approve of us shouting her name, ADA!, and might even prefer a more diminutive and modest approach of ee cummings, as ada. Consider how this corresponds with contemporary usage of names. None of the cognoscenti participating in this forum would even fall into the error of calling Robert Dewar, "Bob." :-) Then again, we must consider the difference between form and substance. Ada, ada, ADA, aDa, aDA, adA, ADa, AdA, all spell quality in software. The underlying language is the really important issue. If someone prefers, as I do, FORTRAN to Fortran, I see little harm in it. If someone chooses Fortran over Ada, we begin to suspect a serious intellectual defect. If someone chooses c++ over ada, regardless of where the capital letters are placed, there is a clear indication of chronic mental aberration. Choosing the right tool is more important than choosing the preferred spelling. Richard Riehle ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1999-11-03 0:00 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 31+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 1999-10-24 0:00 Simple algorithmic question I hope :-) SPick60809 1999-10-24 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-10-24 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-10-25 0:00 ` SPick60809 1999-10-25 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 1999-10-25 0:00 ` Robert A Duff 1999-10-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-10-28 0:00 ` Robert A Duff 1999-10-26 0:00 ` Vladimir Olensky 1999-10-26 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 1999-10-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-10-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-10-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-10-26 0:00 ` Aidan Skinner 1999-10-28 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 1999-10-28 0:00 ` Nick Roberts 1999-10-29 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 1999-10-29 0:00 ` William B. Clodius 1999-10-30 0:00 ` Simon Wright 1999-11-03 0:00 ` William B. Clodius 1999-11-02 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 1999-11-02 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-11-03 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 1999-10-29 0:00 ` David Starner 1999-10-31 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-10-28 0:00 ` Gautier 1999-10-31 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-10-31 0:00 ` David Starner 1999-11-01 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-11-03 0:00 ` William B. Clodius 1999-10-31 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox