Intelligent macros .vs. BITS - Fortran

This is a discussion on Intelligent macros .vs. BITS - Fortran ; I have no much knowledge on BITS. I think Intelligent macros is very important feature. However, why the 2008 standard remove the "Intelligent macros" item?...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Intelligent macros .vs. BITS

  1. Default Intelligent macros .vs. BITS

    I have no much knowledge on BITS. I think Intelligent macros is very
    important feature. However, why the 2008 standard remove the
    "Intelligent macros" item?

  2. Default Re: Intelligent macros .vs. BITS

    Hello,

    On 2008-03-20 21:02:21 -0400, Simulate <li.simula@gmail.com> said:

    > I have no much knowledge on BITS. I think Intelligent macros is very
    > important feature. However, why the 2008 standard remove the
    > "Intelligent macros" item?


    The short answer is that macro preprocessing
    was seen as a backward technology. That is,
    all macro preprocessing was seen as backward.
    See, for instance, PL/1.

    Something closer to Ada-style generic programming
    was seen as "more modern" programming. Yet that was
    rejected as being too costly to implement.

    YMMV

    The even shorter answer is that
    that's the way the votes were counted. ;-)
    Also, WG5 (who make these decisions) tries
    to work by consensus. There was simply a minority
    (I was one) who would never accept macro preprocessing.
    The convenor decided the votes were strong enough
    to remove a feature nobody thought was essential.

    --
    Cheers!

    Dan Nagle


  3. Default Re: Intelligent macros .vs. BITS

    Dan Nagle wrote:
    (snip)

    > The short answer is that macro preprocessing
    > was seen as a backward technology. That is,
    > all macro preprocessing was seen as backward.


    Java has no macro facility for the same reason.
    For conditional compilation they guarantee that
    code in an

    if(false) { }

    group won't be compiled. The statements to have to
    be legal, unlike those in a C

    #if 0
    #endif

    block.

    > See, for instance, PL/1.


    The PL/I macro processor is probably more featured than
    it needs to be. Symbol replacement and conditional compilation,
    the two main features of the C preprocessor, are likely the most
    used and most useful.

    -- glen


  4. Default Re: Intelligent macros .vs. BITS

    But generic programming is the overwhelming direction in programing at
    present time. It may be later to add this feature in Fortran even now.
    However, is the feature only wait to next standard in 2016?

  5. Default Re: Intelligent macros .vs. BITS

    Simulate <li.simula@gmail.com> wrote:

    > But generic programming is the overwhelming direction in programing at
    > present time.


    In some ways, that's a pretty big argument *AGAINST* doing it. Trying to
    run after the latest fad ends up with just a mess after a few
    generations of such fads; that is not a way to go for the long term.

    As it happens, I do think that there is a lot of benefit to generic
    program. But *NOT* just because that's the current fad that we should
    try to jump on.

    However, even among strong supporters of generic programming, there is
    major debate as to whether a macro feature is a good way to do it.
    Perhaps it is a good way. I'll defer judgement. But I will note that
    doing a good job of something like generic programming requires a lot of
    careful thought and design work - not just throwing in the first idea
    that comes to someone's mind. If you want to know why "intelligent
    macros" aren't in the current proposed language, perhaps that is one of
    the answers (along with the answers already mentioned, such as that it
    didn't get enough votes). Maybe some people thought it too important to
    throw in a half-baked job that would get in the way of doing it better
    later. I'm not expressing an opinion on whether the proposal was
    half-baked or not. I'm just elaborating on whay the fact that something
    is considered important might be reason to take the time to come up with
    a good proposal.

    --
    Richard Maine | Good judgement comes from experience;
    email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement.
    domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain

  6. Default Re: Intelligent macros .vs. BITS

    On Mar 21, 1:11 am, nos...@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:
    > Simulate <li.sim...@gmail.com> wrote:

    <snip>
    > If you want to know why "intelligent
    > macros" aren't in the current proposed language, perhaps that is one of
    > the answers (along with the answers already mentioned, such as that it
    > didn't get enough votes). Maybe some people thought it too important to
    > throw in a half-baked job that would get in the way of doing it better
    > later. I'm not expressing an opinion on whether the proposal was
    > half-baked or not. I'm just elaborating on whay the fact that something
    > is considered important might be reason to take the time to come up with
    > a good proposal.


    I'd much prefer incorporation of a full fledged existing language like
    Rexx or (argh) <Perl | Python | Ruby (pick one). I don't think its
    necessary to invent something completely new, which will likely be
    "less intelligent" for some time to come than any of these I've
    listed.

    >
    > --
    > Richard Maine                    | Good judgement comes from experience;
    > email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement.
    > domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain



  7. Default Re: Intelligent macros .vs. BITS

    On Mar 21, 12:11 am, nos...@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:
    > Simulate <li.sim...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > But generic programming is the overwhelming direction in programing at
    > > present time.

    >
    > In some ways, that's a pretty big argument *AGAINST* doing it. Trying to
    > run after the latest fad ends up with just a mess after a few
    > generations of such fads; that is not a way to go for the long term.


    Kind of ironic isn't it? Generic programming was older and more
    mature than the fad of inheritance based code when that fad was chosen
    to be added to Fortran. Not only that, it's a simpler feature to
    describe, implement, teach, use, read, verify, and maintain than
    inheritance based code. Inheritance based code can almost
    mechanically be converted to generic code, since the capabilities of
    the latter are a superset of what inheritance can do. Unlike
    inheritance, generic programming doesn't introduce a wholly new form
    of dependency. So generic code doesn't become monolithic like
    inheritance based code always does. In fact, programmers find that it
    encourages modularity.

    If Fortran had skipped inheritance and gone straight for generic
    programming we'd now have a language that could attract new users. It
    would have capabilities that are hard to match with other languages
    (most those with generic abilities also have inheritance to stumble
    over). Rather than playing "me too" with the rest of the world, we'd
    now have a leader.

    To be sure, macros are not the best way to do generic programming
    (though simple ones would be *very* useful for other things). And the
    macro-like Ada implementation of generic is not all that good either.
    The "typeful" language Haskell might be a better model.

    I tend to agree that Fortran already has something like three kinds of
    polymorphism already (counting TRANSFER like tricks) and adding
    another, even a superior one, would be cumbersome because of the need
    to maintain backward compatibility ("backward" being an appropriate
    word here). I will, in a few months, again propose my own possible
    such feature. I was interrupted before when the committee
    unexpectedly took a "final and binding" vote on what new features to
    consider for f2008. I don't think any will listen.

    --
    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

  8. Default Re: Intelligent macros .vs. BITS

    > If Fortran had skipped inheritance and gone straight for generic
    > programming we'd now have a language that could attract new users.  It
    > would have capabilities that are hard to match with other languages


    Yes, I strongly agree with the "attract new users".

  9. Default Re: Intelligent macros .vs. BITS

    On 21 mrt, 15:50, GaryScott <garylsc...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
    > On Mar 21, 1:11 am, nos...@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:
    >
    > > Simulate <li.sim...@gmail.com> wrote:

    > <snip>
    > > If you want to know why "intelligent
    > > macros" aren't in the current proposed language, perhaps that is one of
    > > the answers (along with the answers already mentioned, such as that it
    > > didn't get enough votes). Maybe some people thought it too important to
    > > throw in a half-baked job that would get in the way of doing it better
    > > later. I'm not expressing an opinion on whether the proposal was
    > > half-baked or not. I'm just elaborating on whay the fact that something
    > > is considered important might be reason to take the time to come up with
    > > a good proposal.

    >
    > I'd much prefer incorporation of a full fledged existing language like
    > Rexx or (argh) <Perl | Python | Ruby (pick one).  I don't think its
    > necessary to invent something completely new, which will likely be
    > "less intelligent" for some time to come than any of these I've
    > listed.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > --
    > > Richard Maine                    | Good judgement comes from experience;
    > > email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement.
    > > domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain- Tekst uitoorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

    >
    > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -


    You forgot Tcl and several others in that list

    Regards,

    Arjen

  10. Default Re: Intelligent macros .vs. BITS

    On Mar 21, 10:33 am, Arjen Markus <arjen.mar...@wldelft.nl> wrote:
    > On 21 mrt, 15:50, GaryScott <garylsc...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
    >

    <snip>
    > > I'd much prefer incorporation of a full fledged existing language like
    > > Rexx or (argh) <Perl | Python | Ruby (pick one).  I don't think its
    > > necessary to invent something completely new, which will likely be
    > > "less intelligent" for some time to come than any of these I've
    > > listed.

    >

    <SNIP>
    > You forgot Tcl and several others in that list


    I think I'd have included Expect before I'd ever include Tcl.

    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Arjen- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -



+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast