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: 103376,5f39173193c39af X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,a97c18c9ff9b447 X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) Subject: Re: Objects in Fortran 2000 Date: 1997/03/06 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 223595116 References: <01bc280b$32c42d40$dac32299@default> <5fmemp$bgo@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-03-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <5fmemp$bgo@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>, Thomas Koenig wrote: >What's missing in Ada that is present in HPF or Fortran 95? I >can think of the following, and hope that others will extend the >list: Well, if you add all the missing features, that won't make everybody rewrite all their Fortran code in Ada. It might win over some new projects, I suppose. >- FORALL (similar to a DO loop in Fortran, or a for loop in > Ada, except that the order of execution isn't specified, > so that automatic paralellization is very easy) Such a feature was considered during the Ada 9X project. It was rejected due to the general feeling that Ada 9X was too much. Not due to dislike for the feature itself. (I don't remember the details of the feature -- if anybody is interested, there must be old versions of those documents around somewhere.) >- PURE subroutines, which can't have any side effects (checkable by > the compiler). Ideal for sticking into FORALL statements. Ada 95 has this, although it is not as fine-grained as one might like (pragma Pure applies to a whole library-unit). >- Built-in array arithmetic (quite easy to do with a library in Ada) Yup. - Bob