With discussions on this thread quickly quiet down, I am
afraid some important issues raised by the petition may have
lost in hot debates over Fortran vs. C/C++.
Also, I think at this point, you make have read the followups
on http://www.fortranstatement.com, a FAQ and the critique by
Van Snyder.
I do not speak for anyone. My understanding so far is:
. This is not another "Fortran is dead" claim;
. This is not another C/C++ vs. Fortran debate;
. Many signers are "bread-and-butter Fortran users", or IMO,
foot solders of Fortran working on some largest deposits of
active Fortran software with first hand experience on some
challenging issues.
Therefore, I think these "whiners" should be treated seriously,
not literally by their complaints, but for deeper reasons
behind their persistent complaints.
I actually work with people like them and hear their complaints
everyday. They *are* developers we rely on to improve, modernize,
and develop Fortran software. The complaints were never new,
except that they were raised by *every* group of developers with
different emphasis. Also, they were *rearly* properly addressed.
IMO, the reason behind many complaints is not really the merit
of the language. The true source is probably from the deployment
of the language in a larger context.
For example, preprocessor is a frequently complained issues. There
are plenty explanations why a preprocessor is not a good solution,
and that a standard COCO solution is available. But in reality, a
preprocessor with macros is *almost always* needed. COCO is not well
accepted as a prefered alternative. IMO, the reason has nothing to
do if either side is wrong. Fortran standard may be the wrong one to
be blamed, while the real world software engineering issue *must* be
addressed by practical means.
Also for example, everyone is talking about modernization of
Fortran software. What does it mean? Under Fortran 90/95, we
are witnessing all kinds of software patterns, tested or
untested, being proposed and implemented. Is this a renaissance
or a boom of legacy code of "the third kind"? It is safe to say
that even many professionals are confused by so many issues never
experienced before. It seems some efforts by Fortran community
are needed to inform and educate its members, by addressing those
issues one by one, not through defensive arguments, but through
research and practical solutions, in this list, in FF, in CiSE,
in SC2004, etc.
We have had 10+ years of successful acceptance of Fortran 90/95
by the community. We also have at the present time a new Fortran
standard (2003), a modern language sufficient for years to come.
It is necessary and a right time to review what we have learned so
far, and to study some difficult issues raised in the deployment
of the language. In that spirit, I don't think we are in conflict
with the signers of the petition.
Best regards,
Jing
--
** Any opinion expressed is my own and not that of NASA. **
________________________________ _-__-_-_ _-___--- _____________________
Jing Guo, [log in to unmask], (301)614-6172(o), (301)614-6297(fx)
Global Modeling and Assimilation Office, Code 900.3, NASA/GSFC
Greenbelt, MD 20771
|