Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!nrl-cmf!mailrus!umix!umich!mibte!gamma!ulysses!thumper!faline!bellcore!clyde!watmath!rwwetmore
From: rwwetmore@watmath.waterloo.edu (Ross Wetmore)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: FORTRAN Horror
Message-ID: <17739@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Date: 23 Mar 88 15:12:53 GMT
References: <24861@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> <1135@pembina.UUCP> <2596@pdn.UUCP> <6321@ames.arpa>
Reply-To: rwwetmore@watmath.waterloo.edu (Ross Wetmore)
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 67

In article <6321@ames.arpa> eugene@pioneer.UUCP (Eugene N. Miya) writes:
>In article <2596@pdn.UUCP> alan@pdn.UUCP (0000-Alan Lovejoy) writes:
>>
>>The other reason is that FORTRAN programmers are interested in raw
>>performance above all else. . . .
>>
>>Performance is an OBSESSION with these people.
>
>Sure they have reasons for their obsessions:
>1) Some of the science in these codes is an attempt to stand on the
>shoulders of colleagues and past science (read physics).  We call them
>dusty decks some time.
>
>David Kapholtz (Columbia) suggested there was a degree of arrogance
>in the not-to-be moved insistence on Fortran.
>
> ... but if the science is
>correct, then the descriptive value only needs minor tuning.
>The issue then is only performance (sorry, they are a bit short sighted
>since portability is a minor issue).

  Ok, threshold exceeded ... my apologies if this turns out to be a mistake.

  I think this is an area where the classic symptoms of moral superiority
abound. Computer science has progressed beyond the capabilities of Fortran
and now views it with disdain as neanderthal. Scientists whose interest is
not in computers themselves, but in the results they produce, are quite
content to employ known and trusted tools if they do the job, and find it
extremely frustrating when these tools are taken away and if at all replaced,
then replaced with buggy new tools that are totally untrustworthy.

  Consider the following:
1)  Scientists are paid to do science in their field, not computer science.
    Funding is based on production of tangible scientific results, not in
    upgrading software. 
2)  A scientists reputation is based on producing *correct* results. It is
    not possible to rewrite and test a 100,000 line package of code, nor is
    it possible to do this, on a timescale consistent with changes in computer
    technology.
3)  Previous results and accumulated experience are used extensively in
    development and verification. Throwing this out is generally unthinkable.
4)  Most significant packages in computational science have man-years of
    labour built into them, and are not simply screen-sized programs typical
    of many in computer science.
5)  Unless there is a tangible benefit in performance or capability, rewrites
    are not ever desirable. It is not even desirable to waste the scientists
    time in learning a new machine environment unless there is some concrete 
    advantage to be gained.
6)  Few physicists, chemists or social scientists can appreciate (even if they
    wanted to) the benefits which are likely to come from new technology
    outside their area of expertise. They must be taught and shown remembering
    that what is obvious to the computer scientist is not likely to be so to
    the physicist, and there is always the chance that the computer scientist
    has missed something.

  What is really missing in all this is recognition by all parties that
teaching and transporting technology from one discipline to another is both
necessary and worthy of the time and expense. The second lesson is don't take
away the tools of one discipline until you have upgraded them and the users
to the next level. On the other side, time spent in learning new techniques
is should not be considered as time wasted, and perhaps woudn't be if the
learning process was facilitated and the benefits clearly visible.

Ross W. Wetmore                 | rwwetmore@water.NetNorth
University of Waterloo          | rwwetmore@math.waterloo.edu
Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1       | {clyde, ihnp4, ubc-vision, utcsri}
(519) 885-1211 ext 3491         |   !watmath!rwwetmore