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-Thread: 101deb,e67cdb1dcad3c668 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,gid8d3408f8c3,gidbda4de328f,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news4 From: "J. Clarke" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.pl1 Subject: Re: Why is Ada considered "too specialized" for scientific use Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:14:22 -0400 Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $19.95 Message-ID: References: <4bb9c72c$0$6990$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <4bba8bf1$0$56418$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net> <4bbb2246$8$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <4bbb5386$0$56422$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net> <4bbdf5c6$1$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <4bc5a413$0$78577$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net> <4bc6e42f$2$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <4bd19a2b$0$895$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: p8aee5052874ef9c564e26032aaaaa37990960f3bd82e70b6.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: <4bd19a2b$0$895$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net> Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:11135 comp.lang.fortran:24962 comp.lang.pl1:1282 Date: 2010-04-23T12:14:22-04:00 List-Id: On 4/23/2010 3:29 AM, robin wrote: > "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" wrote in message > news:4bc6e42f$2$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net... > | In<4bc5a413$0$78577$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>, on 04/14/2010 > | at 07:27 PM, "robin" said: > | > |>That's irrelevant. > | > | The dispute is about the development of algorithms, > > No it isn't. > But if you want original development, try > 1. Compilers, typically first written in 1950s in machine code. I think that's a very solid case--there was no need for such a thing before there was machine code so there was no incentive for anybody to even look for the necessary algorithms, although some of the pieces may have had prior development, and you can't use a high level language until you have a working compiler for it (although I understand that in some cases the "compiler" was a grad student). > 2. Nuclear codes. Were the algorithms they used developed to be used on computers or were they computer implementations of the hand and card-machine algorithms that were used during the development of the bomb? Los Alamos didn't have a mechanical computer you know--"computer" at Los Alamos was a job title--but they did have a room full of punch-card machines and a group of teenagers doing amazing things with them. > 3. Computer-generated music Don't know anything about that. > 4. Random number generation. How were random numbers generated before computers? Did they not have viable algorithms for the purpose? > > | not about their > | transcription. The question of whether Ada actually developed the > | Fibonacci algorithm is highly relevant to that question. > > That's complerely irrelevant. > >