Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!ames!pioneer!eugene
From: eugene@pioneer.arpa (Eugene N. Miya)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: F8X: MODULE vs. INCLUDE (really language design and standards)
Message-ID: <5947@ames.arpa>
Date: 13 Mar 88 22:57:46 GMT
References: <1112@ut-emx.UUCP> <6690013@hpclcdb.HP.COM> <1167@ut-emx.UUCP> <514@a.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ames.arpa
Reply-To: eugene@pioneer.UUCP (Eugene N. Miya)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.
Lines: 50

In article <514@a.UUCP> jlg@a.UUCP (Jim Giles) writes:
>In article <1167@ut-emx.UUCP>, reeder@ut-emx.UUCP (William P. Reeder) writes:
>> I just hate the idea of committees doing design work.
>> . . .
>> are also researchers at universities doing design work.
>
>I don't like the idea of letting the implementors do the design either.
>The people who write compilers often have never written a scientific 
>program (I know some who have never SEEN a REAL production code).  How
>can you expect these people to design useful extensions to a language
>when they have no concept of its use?  
>
>A committee is the only workable way to design language extensions.

Committees don't design languages.
Typically one or two people design a language, the rest can only 
nod in agreement.  Design is a real art.  Basically, we
really don't know how to design languages to satisfy every one:
look at the diversity: APL, LISP, FORTRAN, ICON, Ada, etc.
In the end, it really is the compiler writer (implementor) who
has the greatest influence.

The problem with these language standards committees is that they are
dominated by special interest groups (largely manufacturers).
If users expect a say, they HAVE to have representation.  We currently have
modification without representation.  The problem is "minority" recourse.
"Look we are going to change the language.."  "Why nothing wrong with
it to me..."  So gee Jim, which of the user production codes do we look at?
Suppose we look at one application, and it results in things not
to "your" liking?

The note from the fellow saying he didn't need structures, but wanted
a complex type is a good example of whom we must carefully not listen.
He represents a well-intended, but not well informed "electorate."
He probably uses 2-D Complex arrays to implement quaterions.
He wants Units?  He should look at Verifible Pascal or other
"experimental languages."

But then, maybe, we should freeze languages for all time.  Maybe
as each new architecture comes out, we design a new language, then
maybe some old applications, languages, and machines will die out...

Nah....

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {uunet,hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene