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-Thread: 1094ba,9bdec20bcc7f3687 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,gid8d3408f8c3,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news7 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 08:53:18 -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> <4bbc2994$0$6992$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: pd658c26bb858c38117093e2ad5c0c332c3e258d872586fea.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: <4bbc2994$0$6992$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9912 comp.lang.fortran:22215 Date: 2010-04-07T08:53:18-04:00 List-Id: On 4/7/2010 2:43 AM, Georg Bauhaus wrote: > On 4/7/10 6:25 AM, J. Clarke wrote: > >> Look, you were whining about "MS C" not implementing a complex data type. > > Did I? I didn't. I remember saying that even in 2006 (from which > the note in question dates) there were well enough compilers > supporting C99 on Windows NT. > > If VC2010 doesn't support C99, as reported, then still this perceived > lack would not have been a reason to dismiss C just for lack of a > complex data type. And in fact, VS2005, which was available in 2006, > does not have for C. So what? > VC++ does support , > but enough harm has been done in assuming that writing C using > a C++ compiler is a good idea. What "harm" is this? And in point of fact, VS2005 has no C compiler except the C++ compiler that you say should not be used for writing C. What you are calling a "C compiler" is in fact a command line switch applied to the C++ compiler. >> 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. > > My complaint, or observation, is that more than one researcher > talking about programming languages tends to act as a show man > when he or she does not really (need to) know what he or she is > talking about. This creates gossip, perpetuates hearsay, and, > by imitation, drives the choice of programming language for > research. Obviously then, decisions to use this or that language > will not be as informed as could be. Chances are that program > quality suffers. I hope this observation can be shown to be wrong. My complaint is that you seem to be complaining to be complaining. If you're using a C++ compiler then write C++, don't whine because its C support is half-assed.