Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!mips!apple!portal!cup.portal.com!dedina
From: dedina@cup.portal.com (Michael J Dedina)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Fortran 90 status
Message-ID: <42188@cup.portal.com>
Date: 10 May 91 13:03:21 GMT
References: <123207.25873@timbuk.cray.com>
  <1991Apr26.210247.17264@ariel.unm.edu> <3246@travis.csd.harris.com>
  <1991May10.002337.22669@ariel.unm.edu>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 69

>In article <3246@travis.csd.harris.com> bill@hcx2.ssd.csd.harris.com (Bill Leo
nard) writes:
>>
>>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).
>>
>>   [stuff deleted]...
>>
>>let's not expect everything tomorrow.
>>
>
>Bill's points are well taken, but I would make two comments.  The first is
>that at least so far as my appeal went, I am not asking for all the things
>listed above.  Quite the contrary.  I am willing to live with much inconvience
>and lack of portability if that is the price I pay for really superior
>performance.
>
> [stuff deleted]
>
>might hope 6 is not an eternity away.  But to exploit that speed, I need
>languages that address parallelism.  They don't have to be cheap however.
>They don't have to be portable.  They don't have to be easy to use (in some
>sense).  And they most certainly don't have to be safe.   I would like all 
>these things, but the only times the Fortran community has ever had them is 
>during periods of relative hardware stagnation.  The rest of the time, this 
>is the way it has always been.
>
>My other comment is really more to the point however.  The real issue is that
>if we keep going the way we are, Fortran is going to become so obsolete that
>it is no longer viable.  15 to 20 years between modernizations of
>the language is too long.  I still advocate either frequent updates to the
>standard which incorporate existing practice or alternately just giving
>up on the whole concept of standards.  I know there are lots of arguments
>against both ideas, but I haven't yet heard a suggestion that is any
>better.  This much is for sure however, the current system doesn't work.
>
>John
>-- 
>John K. Prentice    john@unmfys.unm.edu (Internet)
>Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA
>Computational Physics Group, Amparo Corporation, Albuquerque, NM, USA

I don't understand your point. If you don't need portability, why is it
necessary for you to wait for the *standard* to introduce parallel
features?  The vendors will (and already have) introduce parallel features
into their compilers before it gets put into the standard.  Fortran *does*
get modernized continuously; it just doesn't get standardized continuously.

Mike Dedina
dedina@cup.portal.com