Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC840302); site mcvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!mcvax!jaap
From: jaap@mcvax.UUCP (Jaap Akkerhuis)
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: Re: What language do you use for scientific programming?
Message-ID: <802@mcvax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 9-Sep-85 00:43:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: mcvax.802
Posted: Mon Sep  9 00:43:57 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 10-Sep-85 05:20:12 EDT
References: <909@oddjob.UUCP> <64500002@hpislb.UUCP> <630@mmintl.UUCP> <29418@apple.UUCP> <1714@orca.UUCP>
Reply-To: jaap@mcvax.UUCP (Jaap Akkerhuis)
Organization: CWI, Amsterdam
Lines: 12
Keywords: boring, scientific, programming
Summary: This discussion is boring
Organisation: Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica, Amsterdam

In article <1714@orca.UUCP> jans@orca.UUCP (Jan Steinman) writes:
 > In article <29418@apple.UUCP> mark@apple.UUCP (Mark Lentczner) writes:
 > >I know this may sound bizarre, but why not Smalltalk for scientific

 > It's just a matter of time before Smalltalk interfaces to compiled languages
 > are available.  The the Smalltalk speed issue will be put to rest by writing

As long as nobody gives a definition for "scientific programming" this
discussion will drag on until all merits of PAL/8, ADA and COBOL have been
beaten to death.

	--jaap