Re: In the Shallow End

"GreyCloud" <mist@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:gZKdnWTFV6Q3TX7ZnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dan Johnson wrote:
My bet is they didn't do anything as silly as building
an RDBMS on RMS; they just build a database
in the usual way.

You lose. And they did.
VMS has plenty of fine tuning parameters for RMS... and companies like
Oracle get the fun of tweaking them for their use.

Tuning parameters are not going to turn an ISAM
into an RDBMS.

But then let us see your definitions of ACID transactions now.
You can't force a one way conversation here.

If you admit that you don't know, and ask nicely, I
will explain ACID transactions to you.

Then you made it all up.

Heh. I just "made up" ACID transactions, eh?

Nice self nuke there, knowing that I can just as easily
look it up on Google eh?

Maybe you should. You might learn something
*without* the embarassment of admiting you
are making all this up as you go along. :D

[snip]
Maybe. Their OS has improved greatly
year over year, and has actually surpassed
Windows XP in several particular areas.

Of course, Leopard appears to end *that*
trend, but we'll see how it comes out in
the end.

So you think. The seecrit stuff ain't out yet. :-P

Yeah! That's the ticket!

Jobs is just trying to keep a known crook straight for a change.

As I said before, this is absurd: MS has no
time to be copying anything until Vista is
out.

[snip]
Checking array bounds strictly makes C# slower
and blocks a number of performance-enhancing
tricks FORTRAN can do. But it makes the language
safer as well.

You've never used fortran so obviously, again, you don't know what you are
talking about.

I haven't used it outside of school, but these sorts
of tricks aren't rocket-science either.

[snip]
By 'libs' do you mean libraries, or are you on about
something else?

Yes, the fortran libraries. All fortran processors come with their own
libs. The exception is the one that Intel makes for Linux. There they
share some of the Gnu libs and bring in some of their own.

Am I supposed to be impressed by this?

[snip]
It would be far too slow. But it is as accurate as
you want it to be.

But can't do the type of math that Fortran can do... namely
transcendentals and complex numbers.

COBOL is turing complete; it can do all that stuff,
and any other computation you want.

The syntax is a crawling horror, but then,
it always ways.

[snip]
Yes, they do. Accuracy is very important
in some segments of the industry.

I don't believe you, so you'll have to pony up some proof. This I gotta
see.

Er, you don't believe accuracy is very important
in some segments of the industry, or you believe
all other languages but Fortran ignore the issue?

[snip]
You can't fix this by 'taking things into account';
you need more bits to store more precision.

Hence the routines in the libs to take this into account. Something that
you don't know about obviously.

You have *got* to be kidding. Library routines?

Every time I talk to you, I leave with the feeling that
you don't actually know what the words mean, but
somehow fit them together gramatically none the
less. It's really weird.

Also the reason why the latest Fortran standard supports the quad data
types.

They do, because much hardware today supports
'bigger than double' floating point types; 80-bit
'long doubles' are pretty common.

Naturally FORTRAN would wish to support
this.

[snip]
Oh, the irony! You spent quite sime time directing me
to the FORTRAN 2003 standard, and now that it you
find out (from me) that it doesn't include BCD arithmetic,
you point to a vendor implementation... Microsoft's no less!

Are you stupid or just can't read?
What part of extensions do you not understand?

I notice that at the start of this weird part of the
thread, it wasn't extensions but the 2003 FORTRAN
standard you were talking about.

Anybody can do extensions, and everybody actually
does do libraries.

Just don't ever complain about MS polluting Java
with nonstandard features, okay? :D

But M$ tried to pollute the standard so many times.
Sun finally had to sue M$.

Somehow, I knew you wouldn't let me down!

[snip]

A shortcoming in standard FORTRAN.

Back around the F77 standard, yes. The latest standard 2003 is
far much better.

Still no BCD support in there.

Extensions happen... deal with it.

I love 'em. Especially MS's extensions. Especially
to Java. :D

And M$ is rife with their own concocted extensions and then later try to
push it as a standard and locking out other vendors.

MS had the good taste to rename the extensiosn "C#"
before standardizing them. :D

[snip]
And that shortcoming is a lack of support for
high-accuracy computation.

Wrong again.
Otherwise, fortran would have died off a long time ago.

Not at all. Speed is, in some sectors, much more
important than accuracy.

[snip]
It takes down your apps when it goes.

So? The point is keeping from rebooting the o/s.

No. That isn't the point at all.

The relaunch of an app is trivial. Especially in a large corporate
environment.

Losing all your apps, and all data in them, is
non-trivial.

X-Windows manages to achieve stability in
name, but in practice it is not really there,
not on a single user system anyway.

[snip]
There is not much new in it, but not quite nothing. It's mostly
an assembly of successful features from other languages.

And all M$ feechures too.

If this were so, would it not make C#
innovative? :D

Mostly not worth looking at.

It's over your head. You shouldn't bother. :D

[snip]

That's why they call it 'competition'.

And that's usually why they keep getting sued.

That's why they call it 'America'. :D

[snip]
Their line up needs a better vertical correction. All they really need is
two more niches to fill. One with the single dual core cpu tower, and one
that is between the mini and iMac. That ought to wrap it up nicely.

They tried selling one of those for awhile, with the G5,
and it bombed.

They need some way to justify their markup or it won't
fly. Pretty cases won't be enough; they tried *that* with the
G4 Cube.

Until Apple has an answer to this, any such system would
be a mistake, I think.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: FORTRAN
    ... (snip about ENCODE AND DECODE perhaps?) ... did not include internal I/O, mixed-mode arithmetic, any way to detect end-of-file in a read, multiple integer precisions, etc. ... Many compilers had extensions for these, but they were not standard FORTRAN -- nor were the extensions consistent across the various vendors. ...
    (comp.lang.pl1)
  • Re: In the Shallow End
    ... Not a problem on Fortran. ... I'm vindicated about how crappy M$ products and languages really are. ... Doesn't matter if they are not standard in other languages, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Anyone for help with DEC (Vax) Fortran-IV ?
    ... to remove the VMS extensions. ... are standard in later versions of Fortran, ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: Help from fellow Fortran Users
    ... and Fortran in which he introduced the subject of Pascal, ... Pascal is a useful, high-level, portable language that is easy to use ... Inasmuch as his comments considered extensions for Pascal in the '70s, ... standard differs from ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: Precision question
    ... It is certainly to be expected that they behave like standard equivalents, assuming you stick to compilers which implement them. ... I don't see any reason for using QCOS, since you will have a difficult time finding a Fortran 66 compiler nowadays which implements that extension. ... Maybe you have confused yourself with all this speculation on how extensions of 30 years ago should behave in current standard Fortran. ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
Loading