Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!snorkelwacker!apple!rutgers!unix!sarnoff!hht
From: hht@sarnoff.sarnoff.com (Herbert H. Taylor   x2733)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Fortran 9X replaced by Ada 9X ?
Message-ID: <653@sarnoff.sarnoff.com>
Date: 13 Sep 90 20:40:24 GMT
References: <1990Sep13.013750.24378@relay.wpd.sgi.com>
Organization: David Sarnoff Research Center, Princeton, NJ
Lines: 51


**> Many major traditional Fortran users are already switching
**> over to Ada (e.g. NASA).   Fortran 9X is becoming a complex
**> language and those who want the extra features are going to 
**> switch to Ada -- those who do not want the extra features
**> will stick with Fortran 77.  Therefore, Fortran 9X will not
**> be a major commercial language. 

    Actually, Fortran90 programs tend to be much less "complex" - as
you use the term here - then Fortran77. Lots of F77 nested loops
become clean single algebraic expressions.

**> I know of several major companies that are either not doing 
**> a Fortran 9X compiler or are only paying lip service to the project.
   
    Care to name them?

**> [comments deleted]

**> So, netland, what is the future for Fortran 9X? 

  There is of course the old joke: "We do not know what the scientific
programming language of the year 2000 will be but we do know it will be
called Fortran."

**> Is this argument just so much hogwash?  
**> Will Fortran live forever?

  Having asked essentially this question to researchers at dozens of
National labs during the past two years I am afraid the answer is,
"Certainly for a long time". The prevailing logic is, "would you
rather convert a million lines of something called 'fortran to
something else called 'fortran or to something called, 'ADA ?" Some
F90 re-writes may be nearly as difficult as complete ADA ports but to
the nervous types making the decisions its still easier to say,
"Fortran". This is not a flame at Fortran90 (which I happen to like)
but merely an admission that re-coding an algorithm in a new version
of any language which exploits new data structures can be harder then
starting from scratch in a "different" language with the appropriate
data structures.

  The future success of F90 (and perhaps any new or extended language)
will closely "parallel" the emergence and success of systems which
exploit its data structures. In particular it appears to be a natural
for the massively parallel SIMD variety of systems - evidenced by
announced products from TMC, MasPar, DAP etc. It also appears to be a
natural for other SIMD systems such as the Princeton Engine,
Wavetracer, etc. I am not aware of any commercial Fortran90 products
for large MIMD systems but that doesn't mean it isn't being done.
Anybody know what's happening in the MIMD world?

   herb taylor