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

[Pascal Obry <pascal@obry.net>]

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

> I don't think that Ada tasks and MPI are comparable. MPI is mainly used

I'm not talking about Ada tasking. I'm talking about Ada distributed
annex.

> in the fields of supercomputing. You would certainly not use it as a
> fork or threads replacement (incidentally, the 1.x standard of MPI did
> not allow to create processes dynamically) because it would just be too
> painful.

Indeed, I'm certainly not saying that one should use Ada tasks + fork in a
replacement of MPI :)

> Furthermore, MPI allows you to write a program that does a calculation
> in parallel on your computer and, say, NEC's earth simulator because
> data-exchange between processors can happen over TCP/IP. So MPI really
> is a way to distribute one application across a huge distributed system
> involving workstations that can be anywhere on the internet.

Idem for Ada *distributed* annex.

> Also, there are MPI bindings for Ada which wouldn't be the case if those
> two had the same niches in mind.

That's not a proof! It could mean that somebody wanted to use Ada in a larger
project where C++/MPI was used for example.

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