Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!emory!hubcap!Ralph
From: johnson@cs.uiuc.edu (Ralph Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.parallel
Subject: Pancake and Bergmark's paper
Message-ID: <12382@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: 21 Dec 90 15:15:00 GMT
Sender: fpst@hubcap.clemson.edu
Lines: 16
Approved: parallel@hubcap.clemson.edu

I found the paper by Pancake and Bergmark interesting, too.
One thing that I did NOT like was their assumption that
Fortran was the only way to go.  Fortran is a horrible
language.  It has very good implementations, it is true.
Scientific computation would progress a lot faster if
people managed to get away from Fortran.

Of course, I have no immediate candidates to replace
Fortran for scientific computation.  A lot of scientists
around here are fans of Mathematica, and claim that it
is very well suited to scientific computation.  Of course,
like all new languages, Mathematica is pretty slow.  It
seems to take a long time for people to make new languages
as fast as old ones.  Fortran's domination of the scientific
programming marketplace seems to have stifled the development
of competitors.