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