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=2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_DATE, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,b19fa62fdce575f9 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-12-22 21:13:01 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Path: nntp.gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!newshost.marcam.com!uunet!psinntp!shellgate!camo!rgh From: Richard G. Hash Subject: Re: Array mappings Message-ID: Sender: usenet@shellgate.shell.com (USENET News System) Reply-To: rgh@shell.com Organization: Shell Bellaire Research Center References: <9412061309.AA02026@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu> <3csnqi$3ee@felix.seas.gwu.edu> <3d2qk0$qop@felix.seas.gwu.edu> Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 17:08:17 GMT Date: 1994-12-22T17:08:17+00:00 List-Id: In <3d2qk0$qop@felix.seas.gwu.edu> mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) writes: > >Fortran friendly arrays would have been a big advantage, but Ada failed > >for other reasons, too. Some problems were calculating exp(2x) instead > >of exp(x) (we lost a whole week on this), not correctly passsing > >parameters from the 7th parameter on, etc... Yes, I know these are > >compiler issues, but Ada was blamed for it. [...] > Deep sigh. I rest my case. An Ada implementer who really cared about this > potential market would've delivered compilers that did the right thing > for this group of customers. > Mike Feldman I just can't buy this, and I was there (if you consider seismic processing an 'engineer' type thing). I agree that Fortran friendly arrays would have been nice, along with a couple thousand other things. But they just didn't rate more than a blip on the map compared to, oh, let's say, working compilers? Ones where you didn't have to recompile a quarter million lines once a week because the library structure got hosed up with great regularity (recompiling was an event which took about 30 hours at the time). Ones where the generated code was 9 times slower than equivalent Fortran code. Ones where the 7th argument to a routine didn't end up in the weeds. Ones that had actual working math libraries that gave the right results. Let's face it, if you were introduced to Ada in 1986 and were trying to convert a bunch of Fortran programmers over - you had an uphill struggle. The compilers were not all that great back then (there were some exceptions, I'll grant you), and the optimizations were not what they are today. Fairly or not, they gave the impression of slow, buggy, pain the the derriere ^&@#$^, and were the butt of many a joke. Can you not remember back? On machines like the Cray, the Fortran compilers were superb, and you could tune a piece of code so tight it would make your head spin. The Ada compiler(s?) available just could not compete very well. I don't think the compiler vendors weren't trying, it was just a matter of scale. Vendors had been tuning Fortran compilers and their code generation for a decade or more, Ada was new on the scene, and I think it was a little tougher to implement than many folks thought. By and large, to the Fortran community, it was a matter of "why bother with the hassle", things work well enough as they are. I would like to think that things are quite different now. -- Richard G. Hash email: rgh@shell.com Shell Development Company, Bellaire Research Center phone: (713) 245-7311 Member Team Ada Free Ada94 compilers: cs.nyu.edu:/pub/gnat