[J3] [EXTERNAL] Re: Comments on 23-146

[Jeff Hammond]

On 28. Feb 2023, at 2.12, Keith Bierman via J3 <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote:


External email: Use caution opening links or attachments

>As Jim Matheny said "it's the ideas I'm attacking, not the idiot who came up with them."
well put.

I will note that the number of committee members is probably not a very good metric. Otherwise, we'd all be coding in C++! (and my friends on that committee often lament how much easier it would be with fewer).

This is the precise reason for my comment. I’m also a member of WG21, which is larger by all measures of which I’m aware.

If I argued that WG5 should do something because of the membership size of WG21, I’d expect to be treated with derision, which is not an uncommon event at our meetings, I might add.

That is not to say that Van doesn't have a point about possibly learning from Ada. Although the needs of. hard real time systems are typically different from the needs of heterogenous massively parallel computers built out of COTS parts, many of which have SIMD as well as MIMD elements.

I am curious which members of WG5 are also active in Ada, especially those that have an implementation of both. I don’t see any Ada work by NVIDIA, AMD, Cray, Intel, ARM, NERSC, ORNL, NAG, NCAR, or LLNL, but maybe I missed something.

Can someone representing a voting organization in WG5 explain the priority of Ada to their organization and the specific overlap of the usage of the two languages, so I can understand why learning from Ada is a higher priority than the dozen or more other languages that are more widely used in the scientific computing domain?

Thanks,

Jeff


Keith Bierman
khbkhb at gmail.com<mailto:khbkhb at gmail.com>
303 997 2749


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20230228/c2c038ae/attachment.htm>