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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	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
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!195.96.0.7.MISMATCH!newsfeed.utanet.at!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!feeder.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "J-P. Rosen" <rosen@adalog.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Why is Ada considered  "too specialized" for scientific use
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2010 07:30:54 +0200
Organization: Adalog
Message-ID: <hp986e$h2v$1@news.eternal-september.org>
References: <hp95j8$i29$1@speranza.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 05:30:55 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: feeder.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="EEFtjOeH1c5tyHi9KZnEuQ";
	logging-data="17503"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19w5ABD8jJUNwUrYFHhdJ5C"
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
In-Reply-To: <hp95j8$i29$1@speranza.aioe.org>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8ZGkIAANniLhnim2tlDnovC68gQ=
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9856
Date: 2010-04-04T07:30:54+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Nasser M. Abbasi a �crit :
> 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 "
Sigh... I understand people who stay with Fortran for scientific
programming. I can't understand the benefit of switching to C. C is too
specialized (for system programming) to be acceptable for scientific
programming ;-)

> 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?
> 
There are lots of things that make it better: guaranteed accuracy,
including for the mathematical library, convenient manipulation of
arrays, concurrency to name a few.

This kind of remark comes generally from hear-say of people who never
had a serious look at Ada. Unfortunately, it is easier to repeat a rumor
than to investigate seriously...

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------
           J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr)
Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr