On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 00:33 -0700, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> In that sense, I think "restrict itself to maintenance mode" and TR
> work until the first Fortran 2008 compiler is available is compatible
> with the idea of doing for about a year only maintenance and TR
> development.
About a year is about right. That year began when the FDIS was
submitted for ballot, and will be ended soon.
> > A significant reason that Fortran fell into bad odor in the computer
> > science community between 1966 and 1990 was that it had stagnated.
>
> And one reason that it stagnated after a couple of years after 1990
> was the lack of compilers ...
And one reason for the lack of compilers was a lack of interest because
language development had stagnated.
> > Fortran 2008 wouldn't have co-arrays, which are an enormous leap
> > forward compared to PVM or MPI or HPC or OpenMP.
>
> While I do like coarrays, I do not see them as being "an enormous leap
> forward"; they make Fortran more attractive, they offer some nice
> features and integrate nicely into the language, but one has to do the
> same effort as with MPI to parallelize the code. (The coarray syntax
> seems to be easier, but the structure of the program is the same as
> with MPI.)
Show me an MPI code for something as simple as Jacobi relaxation that is
smaller than 10 times the size of an equivalent coarray code. OK, maybe
you can beat 10, but how about two?
|