Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!cwjcc!gatech!hubcap!steve From: steve@ragman (Steve Stevenson) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: How to supplant FORTRAN (Was: Algol-68 down for the count) Message-ID: <3741@hubcap.UUCP> Date: 5 Dec 88 13:31:23 GMT References: <416@ubbpc.UUCP> Sender: news@hubcap.UUCP Reply-To: steve@ragman Lines: 52 From article <416@ubbpc.UUCP>, by wgh@ubbpc.UUCP (William G. Hutchison): > Now that we have gotten back to the topic I really wanted to discuss, I > propose to focus on one particular issue: > How can we (or you) produce a language that will supplant FORTRAN, in the > sense that folks using FORTRAN would voluntarily migrate their code to the > new language, or that economics would force them to migrate? > > Remember, responding that "Language X is better than FORTRAN already" is > probably true, for many unifications with X, but it is not an answer to my > challenge. An answer would be a new programming language, or a political > and economic strategy to promote the use of X rather than FORTRAN. At Supercomputing '88 there was considerable heat (and not much light) on the subject. The participants from the eng/sci side seemed pretty adament about retaining Fortran. But I heard an undercurrent that I've heard from years. Scientists I've worked with certainly quote Hamming: ``the purpose of computing is insight, not numbers.'' At the ``Grand Visions'' session, several science types presented problems they saw as requiring a computer science solution --- and then claimed that CS folks were not in tune. I pointed out to the panel that no CS person was on the panel so it amounted to an incestuious relationship. But, I think they have a point. I would add the following rewrite of the Hamming quote: ``The purpose of programming languages is insight, not programs.'' I personally think that you will get scientists off Fortan when they can quit ``programming'' and start doing science. I would therefore say the following will have to happen: @ CS folks must recognize that their programming problems are to build eternal systems. A scientist's program is always evolving, as her/his insights deepen. @ CS folks do not have a recogized derivation criteria for their programs. Programs unfortunately just ARE qua ARE. Scientists and engineers have recognized ways to deal with the derivation. We should support that somehow. @ The promotion of X (above) requires showing the scientist/engineer that their science is preserved. Fortran is to science what Cobol is to DP: a tremendous investment in the past and, right or wrong, the embodiment of the societal knowledge. So I'd challenge the CS community. Quit carping; Ada is not a solution if nobody uses it. Claiming that complex numbers are not interesting enough to be a defined part of the language will not sell any scientist doing eigenvalue problems. Steve (really "D. E.") Stevenson steve@hubcap.clemson.edu Department of Computer Science, (803)656-5880.mabell Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-1906