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-Thread: 103376,6609c40f81b32989 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!188.40.43.213.MISMATCH!feeder.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Colin Paul Gloster Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Why is Ada considered "too specialized" for scientific use Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 20:31:21 +0000 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: References: <2b3e186c-de89-4a92-9465-556889ef1c20@n34g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> Reply-To: Colin Paul Gloster Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Injection-Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:33:07 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: feeder.eternal-september.org; posting-host="kheEuXGHhE2Z5eF1gAST+A"; logging-data="14770"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+5AYtYzWQygJeWHl9f0s1USObHjGSRj1W78rQ+IkObag==" User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LNX 1167 2008-08-23) In-Reply-To: <2b3e186c-de89-4a92-9465-556889ef1c20@n34g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> Cancel-Lock: sha1:o9ZZaIKhFZCO4fUChBxhG4RrXr8= X-X-Sender: Colin_Paul@Bluewhite64.example.net Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:10947 Date: 2010-04-13T20:31:21+00:00 List-Id: On Sun, 4 Apr 2010, Andrea Taverna suggested: |------------------------------------------------------------------------------| |"On 4 Apr, 06:46, "Nasser M. Abbasi" wrote: | |> I was browsing the net for scientific software written in Ada, and came | |> across this strange statement: | |> | |> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/329/lectures/node7.html | |> | |> "Scientific programming languages | |> What is the best high-level language to use for scientific programming? | |> This, unfortunately, is a highly contentious question. Over the years, | |> literally hundreds of high-level languages have been developed. However, few| |> have stood the test of time. Many languages (e.g., Algol, Pascal, Haskell) | |> can be dismissed as ephemeral computer science fads. Others (e.g., Cobol, | |> Lisp, Ada) are too specialized to adapt for scientific use. | |> | |> ...... | |> | |> The remaining options are FORTRAN 77 and C. I have chosen to use C " | |> | |> I find this strange, because I think Ada can be the best programming | |> language for numerical work. So, I do not know why the author above thinks | |> Ada is "too specialized to adapt for scientific use". Is there something in| |> Ada which makes it hard to use for scientific programming? | |> | |> The main problem I see with Ada for scientific use is that it does not have | |> as nearly as many packages and functions ready to use output of the box for | |> this, other than that, the language itself I think is better than Fortran | |> and C for scientific work. | |> | |> (the above quote is from a course on Computational Physics at University of | |> Texas at Austin, may be I should write to the professor and ask him why he | |> said that, but I am not sure I'll get an answer, my experience is that most | |> professors do not answer email :) | |> | |> --Nasser | | | |In my infinitely small experience with Ada as a CS student and self- | |taught practitioner I have to say that's mostly "FUD"." | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------| Agreed. |------------------------------------------------------------------------------| |"[..] | |This is not the reason for which the languages above are used, but | |it's the explanation given for not trying the alternatives. | | | | | |The only true reason for which Ada or other languages aren't used is, | |as you said, the amount of available software directly usable in those | |languages, which depends on the popularity of the language itself, | |which, in turn, depends on the ease with which the language can be | |implemented in popular architectures (x86 PC). This more or less dates | |back to Unix and C being the ultimate computer viruses (cfr. "The Unix | |Haters Handbook") ... " | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------| No. Someone who works predominantly as something else (such as a physicist) lacks the confidence; time; motivation; background; understanding; and skills to waste time learning another language. It would be better that the one language which an incidental programmer did not become completely scared of was Ada, but few incidental programmers would be taught such a good language to begin with, and few incidental programmers will try a second language.