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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,90c3c79963d78580 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-05-09 16:38:47 PST Path: newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!sfo2-feed1.news.digex.net!intermedia!typhoon.sonic.net!unlnews.unl.edu!newsfeed.ksu.edu!nntp.ksu.edu!news.okstate.edu!dvdeug From: dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu (David Starner) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Numerical Computation and Ada95 Date: 9 May 2001 19:42:16 GMT Organization: Oklahoma State University Message-ID: <9dc6io$a2g2@news.cis.okstate.edu> References: <9dc4sh$ru5$1@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr> Reply-To: dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org NNTP-Posting-Host: x8b4e555d.dhcp.okstate.edu User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.0 (Linux) Xref: newsfeed.google.com comp.lang.ada:7421 Date: 2001-05-09T19:42:16+00:00 List-Id: On Wed, 9 May 2001 22:13:31 +0300, N&J wrote: > I asked if Ada95 is better that Fortran90/95 and C++ for writing programs > for numerical computation and the reply was that the Ada language > specification requires extensive > run-time checks which slows down the programs. There's always the question on whether you want fast programs or correct programs. (-: Most Ada compilers offer switches to turn off run-time checks, so there should be practically no difference between the speed of Fortran, C++ and Ada. (In practice, Ada seems to be slightly slower (10-20%) even with the checks turned off. This will of course vary widely depending on your program and enviroment.) > I have noticed that there are too few numerical > programs in Ada95 for numerical computation is the above fact the real cause > for this? Ada has various stigmas in the programming community and Fortran users seem to be reluctant to ever give up Fortran. (I have a teacher who still complains that changes between Fortran 66 and Fortran 77 broke some code of his. He is also of the Fortran is the universal programming language mindset.) > Finally would you suggest someone to use Ada95 for numerical code? (Donning abestos suit.) Probably not. Fortran and C++ have a variety of optimized, tested numeric libraries, like Lapack and Blitz, that are generally missing from Ada. (I'm sure someone will pop up with some Ada binding to them, or one of the numeric libraries for Ada. The first tends to be slower than just using the real thing, and if you're using Lapack, why not just use Fortran? The latter are neither optimized or heavily bug tested.) Ada does have the advantage in having a free, highly ported compiler (GNAT), where as Fortran 90/95 doesn't. -- David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org "I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored." - Joseph_Greg