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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no 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 Path: g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!trnddc05.POSTED!87bf9b22!not-for-mail From: Dan Nagle Reply-To: dnagle@erols.com Organization: Purple Sage Computing Solutions, Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060420) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: Ada vs Fortran for scientific applications References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 15:23:05 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.108.4.182 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net X-Trace: trnddc05 1148311385 70.108.4.182 (Mon, 22 May 2006 11:23:05 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 11:23:05 EDT Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4339 comp.lang.fortran:10076 Date: 2006-05-22T15:23:05+00:00 List-Id: Hello, Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote: > Nasser Abbasi a �crit : >> What are the technical language specific reasons why Fortran would be >> selected over Ada? >> > Some immediate reasons: > 1) Packaging. Packages allow better organization of software, which is > good for any kind of application. Can you compare and contrast Ada packages with Fortran modules and submodules? > 2) Strong typing. Scientific applications often deal with physical > units, and Ada is great at supporting these. What specific features of Ada provide better support than the comparable feature of Fortran? > 3) User defined accuracy. Ada allows you to define the accuracy you > need, the compiler chooses the appropriate representation. Note that you > are not limited to only two floating point types (many machines have > more than that). How is this better than Fortran's kind mechanism? > 4) Fixed points. Not available in Fortran Agreed. How important is this for floating point work? Fortran is rarely used for imbedded software (at least, I wouldn't). > 5) Guaranteed accuracy, not only for basic arithmetic, but for the whole > mathematical library Can you compare Ada's accuracy requirements with Fortran's support for IEEE 754? > 6) Standardization. All compilers process exactly the same language. Again, how is this different? Fortran compilers are required to be able to report use of extensions to the standard. > 7) Interfacing. Easy to call libraries in foreing languages => all > libraries available for Fortran are available for Ada. Can you compare Interfaces.C to ISO_C_BINDING? How is one better or worse than the other? > 8) Concurrency, built into the language Co-arrays and concurrent loops are coming in Fortran 2008. > 9) Generics. Stop rewriting these damn sorting routines 1000 times. Intelligent Macros are coming in Fortran 2008. > 10) Default parameters. Makes complex subprograms (simplex...) much > easier to use. Agreed. > 11) Operators on any types, including arrays. Define a matrix product as > "*"... How is Ada's operators for types better or worse than Fortran's? Is Ada's "*" operator better than Fortran's matmul()? > 12) Bounds checking, with a very low penalty. Makes bounds checking > really usable. How is Ada's bounds checking better or worse than Fortran's? "Fortran" /= "FORTRAN 77" ;-) -- Cheers! Dan Nagle Purple Sage Computing Solutions, Inc.