Re: Computational scientists ignoring and ignored by Ada

[dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio- state.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!ajpo.sei.cmu.edu!wellerd@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (David Weller)]

In article <1993Sep1.142933.15335@relay.nswc.navy.mil> bwallet@apssgi.nswc.navy
.mil (Brad Wallet) writes:
>In article <CCnAw5.rt@cerc.wvu.edu>, vanscoy@cs.wvu.wvnet.edu (Frances L VanSc
oy) writes:
>|> [deletia]
>|> We who have an appreciation for Ada and software engineering and
>|> experience in scientific computing need to continue to encourage
>|> parallel computer vendors and Ada compiler vendors to provide Ada
>|> compilers for parallel computers.
>|> 
>
>As a computational scientist, I agree completely.  But, there is hope.
>The new Ada compiler for SGI machines (Verdix, I believe) offers true
>support for multiprocessor machines.  Ada is so well suited for it.
>Different tasks using different processors.  Oh, the structure is all
>built in.
>
>Brad

Quite right, Brad.  The MP-Ada product is a significant advance
for Ada compilers.  However, I would like to point out that the
structure isn't _quite_ "all built in".   Like any product that
has "special" support, there is an (obvious) element of non-portability
in the code you write.  I think it's a shame that Verdix wasn't
the "first kid on the block" to provide us with an early version
of protected records (which is, to a limited extent, what the
special features of MP-Ada do).  I hope that folks that are at
Tri-Ada and OOPSLA put Verdix on the spot for this: There are several
constructs within MP that are supported with PR syntax.  This
will probably lead to inconsistencies in the future, once
9X compilers are released.

Don't get me wrong, I think MP-Ada is a wonderful product.  I just
also happen to think that this is a case of "Excellent tactics,
Horrible strategy".  Certainly, if I were working at Verdix or
SGI, I might claim that PRs aren't "stable" enough to attempt
implementation, but I don't :-)

Perhaps Dave McAllister (boy, I hope I spelled that right) can
add some commentary from the SGI side?

-- 
type My_Disclaimer is new Standard.Disclaimer with record
	AJPO, SEI : Cognizance := Disavow_All_Knowledge;
end record;--)