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-Thread: 101deb,15c6ed4b761968e6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,gid1094ba,gid101deb,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!69.28.186.75.MISMATCH!hwmnpeer01.lga!news.highwinds-media.com!hw-filter.lga!fe10.lga.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "John W. Kennedy" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.pl1 Subject: Re: Ada vs Fortran for scientific applications References: <0ugu4e.4i7.ln@hunter.axlog.fr> <%P_cg.155733$eR6.26337@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> <6H9dg.10258$S7.9150@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <1hfv5wb.1x4ab1tbdzk7eN%nospam@see.signature> <2006052509454116807-gsande@worldnetattnet> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:50:19 -0400 NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.193.246.216 X-Complaints-To: abuse@cv.net X-Trace: fe10.lga 1152647453 68.193.246.216 (Tue, 11 Jul 2006 12:50:53 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 12:50:53 MST Organization: Optimum Online Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5627 comp.lang.fortran:11956 comp.lang.pl1:1994 Date: 2006-07-11T15:50:19-04:00 List-Id: adaworks@sbcglobal.net wrote: > "robin" wrote in message > news:TfPsg.3094$tE5.2436@news-server.bigpond.net.au... >> adaworks@sbcglobal.net wrote in message ... >>> "Gordon Sande" wrote in message >>> news:2006052509454116807-gsande@worldnetattnet... >>>> How many Ada systems can match the undefined variable checking of the >>>> old WatFor or the current Salford CheckMate or the Lahey/Fujitsu >>>> global checking? It seems to be a thing associated with places that >>>> run student cafteria computing on mainframes. Not much used anymore. >>>> There was a similar student checkout PL/I from Cornell if I recall >>>> correctly. >>>> >>> The default for Ada is to do thorough range checking on all numeric >>> types. >> Range checking is not a substitute for detection >> of uninitialized variables. >> > See my example on how Ada supports this in a different post > under this thread topic. An Ada compiler can certainly check > for unitialized variables. It can also check for misplaced artifacts > of all kinds, thereby assisting the developer with program > organization improvement. > > As stated earlier, the fundamental design goal of Ada is provide the > maximum amount of error detection as early in the development > process as possible. Errors, of course, are at different levels. > Sometimes the compiler provides advisory error messages, and > other times the error prevents compilation. I have used a lot > of programming languages during my 40+ years in software and > I have not found a language that is as dependable in this respect > as Ada. > > That being said, I sometimes prefer to use other languages when > Ada is too strict. Currently, I enjoy Python. In the past I have > liked Smalltalk. Long, long ago, when PL/I was new (during > the 1960's and one project during the 1970's), I did some coding > in it, but I am certainly not current with modern PL/I. It did > seem to be an improvement over Fortran and COBOL at that time. > > Every language has its good and bad points, its weak points and > its strong points. Ultimately, it is about choosing the right tool > for the right job. > > I have tried to find information on PL/I that would encourage me to > recommend it. I queried this forum for that kind of information and > received much verbal abuse (except from Tom, who was helpful) > for it. I would like to see PL/I continue to evolve and receive > good support. I would like to see it have a good model for > objec-oriented programming so it would be more attractive to > a larger audience. > > Fortran has continued to evolve nicely. The current standard has > much that is commendable. Even COBOL has evolved with an > OOP capability. In fact, COBOL, for all its faults, continues to > evolve rather well. A language does not stay current with emerging > concepts in program design is not going to retain a following. PL/I > has a good fundamental model. There is no reason why it should > lose its place as a popular programming language. > > So instead of being defensive about PL/I, or haranguing against those > who see potential for improvements, it is probably worthwhile to > work toward making those improvements. I'm afraid that Robin believes that PL/I is perfect as-is. The language needs a great deal of updating; to begin with: Short-circuits (language definitions have never been clear on the issue; many compilers treat & and | as short-circuit under some circumstances, but the issue has never been defined in writing). OO. INTEGER as a type distinct from FIXED and FLOAT. Ranges, subtypes, and subtype-oriented loops. Tagged variants. Decent inter-thread communications. Namespaces. And those are only those that would be compatible. Some existing language "features" should be abolished as unsafe. -- John W. Kennedy "The blind rulers of Logres Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue." -- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"