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: 103376,81da25fe30925578 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Brian Rogoff Subject: Re: Numerics in Ada and C++ Date: 1998/01/23 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 318723829 References: <1d34iv8.bgtlow7504qmN@pool-207-205-223-64.pitb.grid.net> <01bd2858$9f6e9720$c0f682c1@xhv46.dial.pipex.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: 885602000 27489 bpr 206.184.139.132 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-01-23T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Sorry, I realize now that what I wrote was ambiguous. The flaws I referred to are not in numerics handling, but about the language in general. Since I've mentioned them before, and some are just my opinion (eg lack of out mode on function params), I won't rant again. Send me a private e-mail if you want a short list. Even with those flaws, I still find Ada a much more useable language than the competition. -- Brian On 23 Jan 1998, Nick Roberts wrote: > What (numerics) flaws, please? > > -- > > Nick Roberts > Croydon, UK > > Proprietor, ThoughtWing Software; Independent Software Development > Consultant > * Nick.Roberts@dial.pipex.com * Voicemail & Fax +44 181-405 1124 * > *** Always game for a verbal joust (usually as the turkey) *** > > > Brian Rogoff wrote in article > ... > > There is some discussion of this topic in the Ada FAQ, and I think one of > > DEC's compiler experts reports that well programmed Ada was just as fast > > as F77, given a decent compiler of course. Ada does not have the same > > aliasing problems that C and C++ have, and Ada 95, which is more > > permissive than Ada 83 in this regard, forces you to explicitly specify > > aliasing when you want it. > > > > Incidentally, I was looking for a better Fortran several years ago when I > > > "discovered" Ada, after being disappointed by C++. I don't know what the > > current state of C++ compilers is wrt templates, but in 1995 it was > > abysmal. I don't think I'd switch now, even if all C++ compilers > conformed > > to the draft ISO standard. Ada 95 is just a *much* better language IMO, > > despite numerous little (and big ;-) flaws. Particularly for numerics. > > >