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,c4cb2c432feebd9d
X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,c4cb2c432feebd9d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,gid1094ba,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!news3.google.com!news2.volia.net!news.germany.com!newsfeed3.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!nntp.hut.fi!not-for-mail
From: Janne Blomqvist <foo@bar.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Ada vs Fortran for scientific applications
Followup-To: comp.lang.fortran
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 22:43:08 +0300 (EEST)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology
Message-ID: <slrne7c26c.edk.foo@vipunen.hut.fi>
References: <mubcg.13522$fb2.853@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>
 <epcs4e.qb8.ln@hunter.axlog.fr> <tHkcg.6937$kR6.484@trnddc05>
 <sxlcg.75860$F_3.64697@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>
 <e4sv0g$tdl$1@news.nems.noaa.gov> <r5ir72l5ije.fsf@gill.maths.keele.ac.uk>
 <e4v5sa$g1a$1@scrotar.nss.udel.edu> <44734543.80609@cits1.stanford.edu>
 <e4vksu$k82$1@scrotar.nss.udel.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: vipunen.hut.fi
X-Trace: epityr.hut.fi 1148586188 26126 130.233.228.9 (25 May 2006 19:43:08
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@hut.fi
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 19:43:08 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.2 (SunOS)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4469 comp.lang.fortran:10253
Date: 2006-05-25T22:43:08+03:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <e4vksu$k82$1@scrotar.nss.udel.edu>, Rich Townsend wrote:
> Brooks Moses wrote:
>> Rich Townsend wrote:
>>> My stance on A*B is this: if A*B denotes matrix multiplication, then 
>>> A/B should denote matrix 'division': B^-1*A. Which means you need to 
>>> standardize matrix inversion/linear-equations solution into the 
>>> language. Which is batshit crazy.
>> 
>> 
>> I believe that's how Matlab does it.
>> 
>> Then again, for Matlab's purposes, standardizing matrix inversion and 
>> linear-equation solution into the language is entirely reasonable.
>> 
> 
> Exactly. But I don't think you would find a single person in this newsgroup who 
> would support inclusion of a solver in Fortran. And the reason would be netlib.

Well, if a solver were included in the standard or more to the point
in the One True Compiler (TM), then perhaps we wouldn't need these
ridiculous "fastest matrix inversion" contests.


-- 
Janne Blomqvist