Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!rex!uflorida!travis!hcx2.ssd.csd.harris.com!bill From: bill@hcx2.ssd.csd.harris.com (Bill Leonard) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: Fortran 90 status Message-ID: <3246@travis.csd.harris.com> Date: 3 May 91 22:23:19 GMT References: <1991Apr24.202115.16119@dragon.wpd.sgi.com> <123207.25873@timbuk.cray.com> <1991Apr26.210247.17264@ariel.unm.edu> Sender: news@travis.csd.harris.com Reply-To: bill@hcx2.ssd.csd.harris.com (Bill Leonard) Distribution: comp Organization: Harris Computer Systems Division, Fort Lauderdale, FL Lines: 66 In article <1991Apr26.210247.17264@ariel.unm.edu>, prentice@triton.unm.edu (John Prentice) writes: > In the past I have defended Fortran pretty seriously, but I have got to > tell people, it looks more and more like it is getting left behind by > the sweeping technical advances occuring in high performance computing. > The standardization debates are focusing on standardizing practices > that have been around now for years, as they should. But in the meantime > the needs of the scientific programmer are changing very quickly and > if the language is slow to change, it may very well become obsolete. > I say this while noting that no other language seems to me to have > established itself the clear winner for high performance computing, > particularly on massively parallel systems. But I don't see Fortran > even being in the running at the moment. If there are arguments I > am missing, I would like to hear them. I've heard these complaints many times, and each time I wonder if people really realize what they are asking for. It seems that programmers (of whatever persuasion) want all (or most) of the following: 1. A modern language with lots of built-in safety (i.e., error checking). 2. A language that supports the latest whiz-bang design methodology (i.e., data hiding, object-oriented, etc.). 3. A language that runs like a bat out of hell. 4. A language that is standard across the entire range of architectures. 5. A language that takes advantage of the latest hardware and programming technology (i.e., dataflow machines, massively parallel architectures, etc.). 6. Cheap compilers and tools. 7. Availability tomorrow (that is, the day after you just bought the latest and greatest whiz-bang computer). Now let's be honest -- does anyone really believe this is possible? Let's look at recent history. Ada was supposed to provide much of these features (but not all). At the time Ada was designed, data hiding and modularity were the latest "fad" in software engineering. By the time Ada compilers were widely available, data hiding was passe and object-oriented design and programming were the "in" thing. Languages, especially ones that provide (1) and (4), take time to design. Compilers and tools for them take time, and money, to build. It takes time to learn what you did right (in the language design) and what you did wrong. (The Ada tasking model is a good example of this kind of education.) I think it's time we took a big dose of realism. Let's realize that the science of building hardware, as well as research into programming methodology, is advancing at a pace that far exceeds the ability of _standard_ (note the emphasis) languages to keep up. That is not to say that we shouldn't build those machines or use those methodologies. But let's not expect everything tomorrow. -- Bill Leonard Harris Computer Systems Division 2101 W. Cypress Creek Road Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 bill@ssd.csd.harris.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Chronologically gifted" -- new government term for "old". Does this make babies "chronologically deprived"? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------