Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!whuxle!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-orphan!blickstein
From: blickstein@orphan.DEC (Dave Blickstein)
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: Re: GSZood scientific programming language
Message-ID: <1711@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 19-Jun-84 09:44:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: decwrl.1711
Posted: Tue Jun 19 09:44:07 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 21-Jun-84 03:54:11 EDT
Organization: DEC Engineering Network
Lines: 31

I think you've forgotten APL.   True APL does not use "standard names" for
mathmatical functions.   But APL notation is always closer to standard math
notation ( we all know that the following FORTRAN statement is mathmatically 
impossible: A = A + 1).  Most people are not aware that APL started out as
a mathmatical notation and was implemented on a computer somewhat later.

It's true that FORTRAN gives access to things like IMSL whereas most (not
all) APL implementations do not.   However, most scientific applications
do not require those functions which APL is missing.

I believe most non-computer trained scientists would find APL a lot more
"familiar" and easier to learn and use than FORTRAN.  I think that for
perhaps even a majority of cases, APL appropriate choice over FORTRAN for
scientific programming.

	Dave Blickstein

Quotes:

   "Why do people use FORTRAN:  People will use tomorrow what they used today
    because that's what they used yesterday."

   "APL is no less readable than Japaneese.  It's just different from than the 
    mass of procedural languages and thus unfamiliar to the average programmer."
   
	(UUCP)  {decvax, ucbvax, allegra}!decwrl!rhea!orphan!blickstein

	(ARPA)  decwrl!rhea!orphan!blickstein@Berkeley
	        decwrl!rhea!orphan!blickstein@SU-Shasta