Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!lanl!a!alm
From: alm@a.lanl.gov (Alex Marusak)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: yes vs. no on f8x
Keywords: f8x, x3j3, wg5, ansi
Message-ID: <877@a.lanl.gov>
Date: 14 Apr 89 17:53:10 GMT
References: <24130@beta.lanl.gov> <98678@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <867@a.lanl.gov> <584@loligo.cc.fsu.edu>
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 51

In article <584@loligo.cc.fsu.edu>, mccalpin@loligo.cc.fsu.edu (John McCalpin) writes:
% . . .
% 	The new power of the current draft language certainly allows
% 	fo abuse (witness the bizarre example of the package to do
% 	arithmetic on Roman numerals in the Argonne report on F8X),
% 	but programs that are carefully written using modularity,
% 	data structures, and operator overloading are MUCH easier
% 	to read and maintain than their FORTRAN-77 equivalents.
% . . .
% 	The writing style of the proposal has nothing to do with
% 	the value of the language.  I certainly found the previous
% 	draft to be mysterious in parts (and inconsistent in others),
% 	but I also do not expect to use the standard as a textbook.
% . . .
% 	Some of us are telling you (X3J3) that we have work to do, and
% 	we are tired of putting up with the archaic language of
% 	Fortran.  The new draft (or something much like it) offers the
% 	only realistic chance for a widespread (i.e. portable) language
% 	to exist that provides both abstraction and performance for
% 	scientific and engineering applications.
% . . .

It seems to me that you have considered carefully the complexity
issue, have measured it against the added power that Fortran 8x would
give you, and have come down strongly in the "yes" column on "shall we
have Fortran 8x?"

At our laboratory (in percentages roughly comparable to all the
U.S. public comments), about 25% of the commentators agreed with
your view, about 25% were indefinite, and about 50% disagreed.

% In article <867@a.lanl.gov> alm@a.lanl.gov (Alex Marusak) writes:
% >
% >This is the crux of X3J3's problem.  I think you have profoundly
% >misunderstood the public review comments.  The scientists and
% >engineers are not saying that they lack the brainpower to learn
% >Fortran 8x. They are saying that they don't WANT to.
% . . .
% 	If the "scientists and engineers" do not want anyone else to be
% 	able to use the new features (perhaps out of fear that one day
% 	they might have to use someone else's code), then we might as
% 	well quit doing science, too.  We might accidently learn 
% 	something that they don't understand, and would have to learn
% 	about....

Your response (in which you equate 'a desire for simplicity' with
'a fear of the unknown') convinces me more than ever that the
misunderstanding is profound.

It does NOT mean you're wrong.  It does NOT mean you're right.
It means that X3J3 has a big, big problem.