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!news3.google.com!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!81.171.88.250.MISMATCH!newsfeed.eweka.nl!eweka.nl!feeder3.eweka.nl!69.16.177.254.MISMATCH!cyclone01.ams2.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!npeersf02.ams.highwinds-media.com!newsfe22.ams2.POSTED!7564ea0f!not-for-mail From: none Subject: Re: Why is Ada considered "too specialized" for scientific use User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2 (This is not a psychotic episode. It's a cleansing moment of clarity.) Message-Id: Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.fortran References: <4bb9c72c$0$6990$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 77.99.56.52 X-Complaints-To: http://netreport.virginmedia.com X-Trace: newsfe22.ams2 1270500714 77.99.56.52 (Mon, 05 Apr 2010 20:51:54 UTC) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 20:51:54 UTC Organization: virginmedia.com Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 21:51:46 +0100 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9885 comp.lang.fortran:22185 Date: 2010-04-05T21:51:46+01:00 List-Id: On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 13:19:07 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote: > On 4/4/10 6:46 AM, 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 text, by Professor Fitzpatrick, Physics, 2006, appears to be an > fine example of quite useful justification rhetoric. > (Of the kind well explained by, e.g. Leon Festinger or Irving Goffman.) > It is full of false facts that in general would offer > to an author the comforts of blissful ignorance and a convincing > appearance at the same time. (Who has not been in this situation? > Assuming that a quick proactive defence of your standing is > more tempting than the alternative: is to shut up?) > > The only reason I can think of is pure fashion - Ada has not been taken up as a popular programming language for scientific use, therefore it is not suitable. But choosing a language based on popularity is not the best approach - although it does have some validity, providing you recognise that popular today does not mean popular when you *really* need maintenance on the software. Dismissing Algol as ephemeral ignores its influence and continuing usage as a base of pseudo-codes. Important numerical libraries were first implemented in ALgol, and later translated to Fortran when Algol's momentum faltered. But that again confuses usefulness of a language for scientific programming with popularity. Ada is heavily influenced by Algol, and I can see nothing in Ada that would prohibbit is wider uptake - other, again, than fashion. It was a language designed to promote re-usability, maximise correctness, and include efficiency and portability, and still has a variety of compilers available, so I can't see any reason why *not* to use it, if you are proficient in its use.