Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: Re: What language do you use for scientific programming?
Message-ID: <1356@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 23-Aug-85 09:20:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1356
Posted: Fri Aug 23 09:20:17 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Aug-85 00:19:28 EDT
References: <152@rtp47.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 38

In article <152@rtp47.UUCP> vollum@rtp47.UUCP (Rob Vollum) writes:

>>> I've been curious for a while what scientist/engineering types on the net
>>> use for scientific programming.  

>Let me start by saying that I don't do any "scientific programming". But I 
>still don't know why no one but me (in a previous reply posting) has even
>mentioned Lisp (in particular Common Lisp, Maclisp, Zetalisp) as an option!
>Every objection that has been raised is handled naturally in Lisp. I'm not 
>advocating rewritting existing code in Lisp, but for prototyping or new
>development, why not? *** Compilers for Lisp are getting good enough so that 
>applications can run just as efficiently in Lisp as C or Fortran, ***
>with the added benefit of a robust development and debugging environment.
>Also, Lisp allows natural extension into arbitrary precision integer
>calculation and rational arithmetic. One example of a huge application
>written in Lisp is MACSYMA, which allows engineers to do SYMBOLIC (i.e.
>without annoying roundoff errors, etc) differentiation, integration,
>matrix manipulation, factorizations, expansions, etc.

Having worked as a programmer for engineers for a number of years, let me
make a few comments.  First of all, these people generally are not taught
Lisp in any flavor.  (Engineers indeed are generally not given the
opportunity.)  Almost all of them are taught Fortran as a matter of course
(frequently by engineering professors who've never bothered to learn anything
past Fortran IV).  The one thing that Fortran excells at is huge numbers of
iterative calculations, especially with the high level of optimization that
is almost always available.  Lisp, insofar as it is able to match such speed,
gives up Lisp features in order to be more like Fortran.

MACSYMA is actually a good case in point.  MACSYMA was developed as an
artificial intelligence project.  The kind of symbolic manipulation is
distinctly unlike much scientific programming.

I'm afraid Fortran is here to stay.  But I agree that it is only reasonable
to ask people to at least try to use 77 (and presumably 8X, when it comes
out) rather than stay stuck in 1966.

Charley Wingate