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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5c4627b775acf6be
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "David C. Hoos, Sr." <david.c.hoos.sr@ada95.com>
Subject: Re: The Ada Scalar, Vector, Matrix and Tensor arithmetic library?
Date: 1999/12/05
Message-ID: <82en2v$ocj$1@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 557013626
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <38497235.D8339C38@netwood.net> <82btoo$8201@news.cis.okstate.edu>
 <82buhr$8q61@news.cis.okstate.edu> <38498EB1.306427C8@netwood.net>
 <82c7mu$a2g1@news.cis.okstate.edu> <3849E314.6281FC6D@netwood.net>
 <82cors$9281@news.cis.okstate.edu>
 <82dk7t$5ka$1@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
 <01bf3f36$43ebbd50$022a6282@dieppe> <82e6pv$79q1@news.cis.okstate.edu>
X-Posted-Path-Was: not-for-mail
X-Priority: 3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
X-ELN-Date: 5 Dec 1999 21:56:47 GMT
X-ELN-Insert-Date: Sun Dec  5 14:05:07 1999
Organization: Ada95 Press, Inc.
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-12-05T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


David Starner <dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu> wrote in message
news:82e6pv$79q1@news.cis.okstate.edu...
> On 5 Dec 1999 15:34:20 GMT, Pascal Obry <pascal_obry@csi.com> wrote:
> >Right, I completly agree. We really want to make any abstraction
> >usable for a *human* and just let the compiler do its job.
> >
> >It cost less today to buy a new fastest machine than to jungle around
> >with the code in the hope to gain some percent of performance. It takes
> >a lot of time to tune the code and it is often a real nightmare to
maintain
> >this kind code.
>
> But in the aplications where vector and matrix libraries are used, this
> isn't always true. Sometimes, you need to do a simulation once or twice,
> because tomorrow's fastest machine and tomorrow's theories will call for
> a whole new simulation with different simplifications. But every 5% you
> shave off means a day or two in time saved each time it runs.
<snip>
Yes... but how many runs do you have to make with that 5% faster program
to make up for one bad run because the API was obtuse and the programmer got
it wrong, as a result?