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