Re: Isn't this in favour of Ada??

[Pascal Obry <pascal@obry.net>]

"Tassilo v. Parseval" <tassilo.von.parseval@rwth-aachen.de> writes:

> This whole annex is merely a few pages. Compare that with MPI 2.0 which
> consists of 370 pages. It defines in great depth all the data-types that
> an MPI conformant systems needs to implement and the whole interface.

Ada Annex-E says nothing about data type because it supports all the Ada data
types described elsewhere.

> That makes MPI extremely portable.

Agreed.

> Maybe. But the mere fact that you can write a small MPI application in
> Ada and connect it to an already existing one running elsewhere speaks
> in favour of MPI. MPI is huge in that in certain fields it is used
> almost exclusively, owing to the fact that its standard is so
> comprehensive and non-ambiguous.

Agreed too. For interoperability reasons it is certainly good to
consider MPI since it is widly used in HPC. But I'm also positive to
say that using Ada Distributed Annex is a good alternative to MPI if
interoperability is not an issue.

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|              http://www.obry.net
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595