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-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news1.google.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news5 From: "J. Clarke" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: Why is Ada considered "too specialized" for scientific use Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 00:25:37 -0400 Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $19.95 Message-ID: References: <4bb9c72c$0$6990$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <4bbb3f22$0$7660$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <4bbba9b4$0$6987$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: p1c1203fc2ab762d151bc2161adb172a9b5f73004eff303c1.newsdawg.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1 Hamster-Pg/1.13 In-Reply-To: <4bbba9b4$0$6987$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9905 comp.lang.fortran:22211 Date: 2010-04-07T00:25:37-04:00 List-Id: On 4/6/2010 5:37 PM, Georg Bauhaus wrote: > On 4/6/10 9:53 PM, J. Clarke wrote: >> On 4/6/2010 10:03 AM, Georg Bauhaus wrote: > >>> So for scientific computing, MS C will be a less attractive choice >>> than GNU C or Intel C, or Comeaucomputing's C on top of MS C adding >>> C99 to MS C, or ... >>> >>> Or less attractive than compilers for one of the other >>> languages such as Ada or Fortran or ... that support both fairly recent >>> standards and computing with complex numbers. >> >> What is the objection to using the C++ complex library? > > (Or, in other circumstances, objections to using a library such > as Leda maybe.) > I'll speculate about two major reasons for not hoping for the C++ > complex library to replace Fortran function libraries any time soon. > At least in some domains... > > One reason would be successful tradition: a researcher has successfully > written a scientific program using knowledge available with Fortran 77; > moving to Fortran 90 has improved the solution. Why switch to > non-Fortran? The post-hoc fallacy aside, if non-Fortran is C++, to use > C++ effectively it takes learning a language integrating very many parts > in far reaching and novel ways (from the researcher's perspective). > Most parts need to be well understood in order to bridle the compiler. > To him or her, what is the indisputable advantage of C++ in relation to, > say, a modern subset of recent Fortran? Maybe the support of physical > unit checks at compile time is an example. But the mechanisms behind > template specialization based C++ computation are not that easy to > grasp, are they? At least hardly easier than just moving to Fortran 95 > or later and manually checking units by paying attention. > > Remembering professor Fitzpatrick's published remark that started this > thread, a researcher's job is probably focused on computing scientific > results rather than optimizing language use. So Fortran 90 it is, or > C---until a new generation of researchers and research problems > gives rise to a new tradition of similarly forced attire using another > language. Technical arguments involving language properties beyond > immediate necessity are subordinate, as ever. After all, > we continue to pay them for this style scientific software! ;-) > [end of speculation] Look, you were whining about "MS C" not implementing a complex data type. Well Visual C++ 2008, which is the only "MS C" in current production, most assuredly DOES implement a standards-compliant complex data type, so I don't really understand the point of your complaint.