Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!steinmetz!sierra!lamson
From: lamson@sierra.uucp (scott h lamson)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: modules in f8x
Message-ID: <9913@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP>
Date: 14 Mar 88 02:47:43 GMT
References: <9872@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> <1178@ut-emx.UUCP>
Sender: news@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP
Reply-To: sierra!lamson@steinmetz.UUCP (scott h lamson)
Organization: GE Corporate Research and Development
Lines: 46

>William  Reeder writes
>> he didn't know the term "strong typing", that's what he wanted to do.
>I am reminded of the quote from Alan Perlis in "Epigrams on Programming":
>	"When someone says, 'I want a programming language in which
>	I need only say what I wish done,' give him a lollipop."
I don't believe I said this should happen automatically.  I said I would
make good use of a tool which enabled me to write code according to my
own coding system, in this case one in which data items representing
physical quantities in my application area were typed in a manner 
analogous to that observed in nature.  
And I would certainly not use it ALL the time anyway.  Nor would I propose
to require you or others to do the same.  The only real points I tried to
make are:
there are things we can use the module feature of proposed F8x besides
    "include"ing "common" data.
there are scientists interested in using these features if they become
    available


>There is NO substitute for careful program design, coding, and debugging.  
No argument!  Just there are good tools to support this, and poor ones.


>I often do write in assembly language -- and for some things I like it.
Got any assembly language coded BLAS for a SUN(w/fpa) or a VAX?  I don't
hear you sayin you would want to write everything in assembler, so we
agree.


>  And I find the idea of any committee doing design work appalling.
Both design by committee and democracy are known for their inefficiency
and arriving at a comprimise (non-optimal) solution.  I sent my comments
to X3J3, so did you.  I am prepared to live with the result.



>Incidentally, I proposed in my comments to X3J3 that S8 be sent back to
>the drawing board with no holds barred and released as a new language,
>not an extension of FORTRAN.  Would that make you happy?
Unless I had some sort of migration path for the thousands of lines of
fortran code I use/support/evolve, I don't think this would help me.  At
best I would have to continue using fortran for many projects, but some
new language for any new projects.  
        Scott|  ARPA:      lamson@ge-crd.arpa
       Lamson|  UUCP:      uunet!steinmetz!sierra!lamson
(518)387-5795|  GE DECnet: qtmvax::lamson