Re: BLAS

[Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen)]

In article <E12qHFV-00005Z-00@Baldrick>, Duncan Sands <sands@topo.math.u-psud.fr> writes:
> Gautier wrote:
> 
>> Duncan wrote:
>>
>> > How important do you think it is to keep Ada 83 compatibility?
>> 
>> Maybe because some Ada83 can be more efficient than their Ada 95
>> replacements. I did not install GNAT on OpenVMS to compare with the
>> DEC Ada I'm using, but the latter really rocks; I doubt GNAT can
>> be as good as DEC Ada. But globally an Ada95 solution using
>> Interfaces.Fortran is preferable. It would be also preferable
>> to have the best sort of Ada 95 for each platform with the in-house
>> code generator, with  e.g. a Lahey Ada95, a DEC Ada 95, a Fujitsu
>> Ada 95, but -hum- it's rather a wish...
>>
>> In fact what is missing is an extensive comparison among
>> compilers on each platforms, including Ada and Fortran
>> compilers!

Unfortunately a published comparison would likely only be made
on the basis of performance or features.  I heard the author
Mark Minasi speak last October about problems in the software
industry, and he pointed out that magazine comparisons with a
two-dimensional array showing features of competing products
was exactly what drove vendors to emphasize new features rather
than quality.  There is a famous quote from Bill Gates saying
that new features are the only thing that sells new versions
of software (not better quality).

I realize that performance is one aspect of "quality",
but I think the more important one is "correctness".

I don't like the idea of Ada people being sucked into the
mainstream error of considering only that which is most
easily measured rather than that which is most important.