Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!caip.rutgers.edu!peskin
From: peskin@caip.rutgers.edu (R. L. Peskin)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Subject: Smalltalk for Scientific Applications
Message-ID: 
Date: 14 Aug 89 15:34:55 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 68





What about Smalltalk for the scientists?

While one can argue that what Smalltalk really needs to be "accepted" is
a "real" application (Analyst, PPS's C++ Object-Works?), I believe the
real test of an environment's acceptance is its use by the scientific and
engineering community. The software crisis in science and engineering
computation has become a critical matter; we can no longer afford to
divert our technical professionals away from their main tasks just
because they are saddled with 30 year old software technology. This
situation offers a unique chance for the Smalltalk community.

Smalltalk already has many of the features needed for modernization of
the scientific software environment. Dynamic binding together with
incremental compilation, integral graphical interface and MVC (or its
equivalent), simple language syntax, system access and extensibility all
are ideal for the "prototyping" of scientific simulations. Smalltalk's
extensive class structure offers the scientist access to the fruits of
many years of computer science labor; i.e. Smalltalk can be a vehicle to
effect the interdisciplinary interface between the scientists, engineers,
etc. and the computer science community. This interface is a major goal
of current research support policy.

Smalltalk has problems that would prevent its ready acceptance by the
scientific community now. But I feel these are correctable. Lack of
double precision (here now in SmalltalkV, and coming soon from PPS), lack
of more complete numerical classes such as complex numbers (also easy to
add and coming soon), lack of mathematical fonts, etc. are just some
examples. Two major criticisms, slow numerical operation and poor
graphics are more difficult to solve. But the access to user primitives
show the way toward solution. (We have demonstrated feasibility of fast
numerical performance by use of user primitives to access method
proceedure on high speed computers via distributed computing. We have
also shown the feasibility of user primitives to allow integration of
"real" hardware level graphics into Smalltalk.) The technical
underpinnings are here, but is the commitment?

Scientific and engineering Smalltalk suffered a real setback when
Tektronix decided to discontinue its product. This leaves PPS and
Digitalk to carry the ball, but unless there is some interest from the
Smalltalk community at large, will these firms want to commit to the
changes needed for acceptance by the scientific community? Our group is
getting calls almost daily from physicists, engineers, etc. interested in
the possibility of using Smalltalk. 

How many of you out there in "Smalltalk net-land" are interested in these
problems associated with scientific use of Smalltalk? Let's hear from
you. Also, is anyone interested in a "bird-of-a-feather" session on this
topic at OOPSLA this Fall? If so let's here from you also.

--dick peskin 




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 Richard L. Peskin     CAIP Parallel Computing Lab                      
 CAIP Center CN - 1390  Rutgers University       
 Piscataway, N. J. 08855-1390             
         net: peskin@caip.rutgers.edu              
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

 
-- 
goodby