JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for COMP-FORTRAN-90 Archives


COMP-FORTRAN-90 Archives

COMP-FORTRAN-90 Archives


COMP-FORTRAN-90@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

COMP-FORTRAN-90 Home

COMP-FORTRAN-90 Home

COMP-FORTRAN-90  2005

COMP-FORTRAN-90 2005

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Fortran bashing in ACM Queue magazine

From:

James Giles <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Fortran 90 List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:10:01 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (83 lines)

[log in to unmask] wrote:
> James Giles made my case for me:
...
>> Or, consider the recurrent discussion caused by the rather trivial
>> mistake of making KIND specifiers be of INTEGER type.  I heard
>> that there was originally a reason to do so that didn't pan out, but
>> that when the reason disappeared, the decision was not reconsidered.
>
> And the alternative Giles prefers is...?

I would now prefer that type not be parameterized.  The feature
complicates the addition of generic features.  But, given KINDs,
the specifiers should have been symbols with no other interpretation
than as KIND specifiers, the result of KIND inquiries, or arguments
to KIND inquiries.  Such as:

   KIND, parameter :: my_reals = selected_real_kind(12,100)
   REAL(my_reals) :: a, b, c

Now, no non-portable assumptions even *can* be made that
REAL(4) is a four byte float, or some such idiocy.

> When most people hear "object-oriented programming" they think "C++",
> which is just about the worst implementation there has been of
> object-oriented programming.  Les Hatton criticized object-oriented
> programming in "Does OO Sync with the Way We Think," but concluded that
> he couldn't determine whether the problems he observed were caused by the
> fundamental paradigm or the design of C++.  The design of the
> object-oriented features of Fortran 2003 is based on Simula.  Care was
> taken to avoid the mistakes of C++.  The modest-size (~150k lines) code
> I'm working on now is designed according to object-based principles
> explained by Charles Norton and Bolek Szymanski.  We believe it is
> reliable and efficient.  Unlike many C++ codes I've worked on, it is
> fairly easy to understand, and maintainable.  I can see how it could
> benefit from many of the more fully object-oriented features in Fortran
> 2003, without compromising its efficiency, reliability or maintainability.

I've pointed out before that anecdotes of successful use by experts do
not even address the issue of whether the feature is a valid addition
to a language intended forgeneral use by average programmers.  Do
average programmers read Charles Norton or Bolek Szymanski?  Do
average programmers even know who they are?  Even if they did, what's
the length of the learning curve?  Will the average programmer have
time to learn a complex paradigm before being promoted to management
and/or moving on to non-coding activities?

>>
> The system is what it is.  You can whine about it, and not get anything
> done, or try to work within it and maybe get at least a little bit done.
> I guarantee that you will neither accomplish anything, nor change the
> system, by sitting on the sidelines and throwing rotten vegetables.

I notice that those within throw their share of produce.  I haven't done
anything in this thread to deserve your tone.  You have not addressed
the basic issue I talked about: where's the daylight in the process.  What
*specifically* are the two relatively major features you mentioned
before?  Why do you *not* want to discuss them in more public forums?
You can whine all you want about external criticism, but it's justified
as long as the committee conntinues to present new feartures as fait-acompli
and claiming it's too late for any changes.  *NOW* is the time to present
*PUBLICALLY* what the committee is doing.  You may even get more
recruits to attend.

> The schedule and method for submitting new proposals for the next
> revision, and the schedule for meetings, and the URL for all meeting
> papers, have been published in several fora, including this one.  It is
> not the responsibility of J3 or WG5 to send personally engraved
> announcements to James Giles to announce each jot and tittle.

And, I notice you still are secretive about the features and proposals
currently under consideration.  Users can and will vote with their feet.
Fortran is over complex as it is.  Additional features should be considered
*very* carefully or users *will* leave the language.  It's already hard
to defend Fortran on its traditional merits of simplicity and efficiency.

--
J. Giles

"I conclude that there are two ways of constructing a software
design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously
no deficiencies and the other way is to make it so complicated
that there are no obvious deficiencies."   --  C. A. R. Hoare

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

December 2023
February 2023
November 2022
September 2022
February 2022
January 2022
June 2021
November 2020
September 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
December 2019
October 2019
September 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
April 2015
March 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
August 2014
July 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
October 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager