Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ecsvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
From: dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady)
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: IBM supercomputer to test QCD
Message-ID: <313@ecsvax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 26-Aug-85 13:40:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: ecsvax.313
Posted: Mon Aug 26 13:40:35 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Aug-85 10:03:03 EDT
References: <278@ecsvax.UUCP> <939@oddjob.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Duke U Comp Ctr
Lines: 38

In article <939@oddjob.UUCP> sra@kaos (Scott Anderson) writes:
> In article <278@ecsvax.UUCP> dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) writes:
> [...]
> >Now, does anyone remember the name of the guy who wrote in Physics Today
> >a few years ago that all physicists should go and buy Commodore 64s so
> >they wouldn't have to use big computers any more?
> 
> The author's name is Per Bak, and his point was that many of the calculations
> that physicists used to do on mainframes can now be done on home computers.
> That doesn't mean that there aren't calculations that need to be done on
> large computers.

I was only kidding (sorry about the missing :=) ), but it's worth noting
that Bak's article was a little overly enthusiastic, if I'm remembering
it correctly.  I don't fault him for pointing out the utility of micros
for scientific use, but at the same time it's important to note that
there were, at the time the article was written, serious objections to
using them for serious scientific work.

The main problem was software, including compilers and subroutine
libraries.  Many BASIC interpreters (and I believe Bak specifically gave
examples of programs in BASIC) have poorly written scientific functions,
for example, which give little if any accuracy in parts of their
domains.  An article in Scientific American compared the accuracy of
various compilers and interpreters on micros and mainframes, with most
of them making an unimpressive showing compared with a pocket
calculator.  Unfortunately, many scientists are self-taught computerists
and either don't know enough to worry about such problems or are
inclined to think it "won't happen to them" in the fine tradition of
seat belt usage.  If you think I'm overly pessimistic, think about how
many of your colleagues use IBM's SSP (including, ghu help us, RANDU).
Have YOU ever checked out the claimed accuracy of your library
functions?
-- 
D Gary Grady
Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC  27706
(919) 684-3695
USENET:  {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary