Surprise

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:29:06 -0700 (PDT), kronecker@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

mathcad

I find it to be useless for most purposes. As I remember correctly, a
version which was actual few years ago (2, maybe 3 years ago) had a
restriction that matrixes cound't have more than a 100 elements. Don't
know if that changed in the later versions.

I took a matrix, inverted it, and multiplied it with the original one,
and didn't get the 1 matrix (the one with 1ns on the main diagonal, I
don't know how is it called in english).

> etc etc why the hell would I bother
>at all? For supercomputing maybe but the vast majority of applications
>no. Let's examine it closely
>
>Maths...yes definately..far superior to all languages.
>Graphics...never.
>Embedded systems...never in a million years.
>Ascii text...not really
>compilers..you kiddin!
>AI...never.
>
>So it has one main application..Maths number crunching which was what
>it was invented for. If I was simulating with a parallel super-
>computer I might use parallel fortran but for most smaller
>applications..not on your Nelly!
>

Yes, but fortran was never intended for vast majority of applications.
It was never intended for anything *but* number crunching. It was
intended just for that, and still serves its purpose very good.
Personally, I don't recall seeing any other compiled language which is
even remotely as user friendly as fortran for that purpose.

But, let's stop now, shall we ?
In the beginning of the thread there was some discussion whether you
were a troll or not ? It is now obvious that either you are, so that
we should end this discussion, or you're not, but you're so poorly
informed, that you should go and read a little google/wikipedia/books
on the subject.

Best regards
Luka

kronecker@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

> On Aug 20, 8:56 am, Gib Bogle <bo...@ihug.too.much.spam.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>kronec...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>>Gosh, this was a big surprise. I though Fortran was dead as a Dodo!
>>>Why are people still using it? I was a great fan of it until about
>>>1997 when I moved to Matlab...then LabView. Why the need to resurect
>>>Fortran? Yes, I know C is shite, has no complex numbers etc but that's
>>>not an excuse.
>>
>>>K.
>>
>>What a surprisingly foolish post!
>
>
> Why? Fortran was a great language for maths there is no doubt...but it
> has had its day now surely.

That's a very limited view of what Fortran was used for. It was at one
time, the common "systems programming" language (with extension
typically of course) other than assembly for many systems.


> Even C++ is being replaced by many industries with C#. Pascal is dead
> too and Modula2. I remember them all.
> None of them was as good as Fortran but I wouldn't dream of using it
> now. Most scientific algorithms have moved across to libraries in
> other languages. I expect oldies like myself who were never taught
> formal programming except part of a maths syllabus would like to hold
> on to it but...no. 15 years ago I would have died for Fortran but now
> we have mathematica,matlab,mathcad etc etc why the hell would I bother
> at all? For supercomputing maybe but the vast majority of applications
> no. Let's examine it closely
>
> Maths...yes definately..far superior to all languages.
> Graphics...never.
> Embedded systems...never in a million years.
> Ascii text...not really
> compilers..you kiddin!
> AI...never.
>
> So it has one main application..Maths number crunching which was what
> it was invented for. If I was simulating with a parallel super-
> computer I might use parallel fortran but for most smaller
> applications..not on your Nelly!
>
>
> K.


--

Gary Scott
mailto:garylscott@sbcglobal dot net

Fortran Library: http://www.fortranlib.com

Support the Original G95 Project: http://www.g95.org
-OR-
Support the GNU GFortran Project: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/index.html

If you want to do the impossible, don't hire an expert because he knows
it can't be done.

-- Henry Ford

Catherine Rees Lay wrote:

> kronecker@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
>> For supercomputing maybe but the vast majority of applications
>> no.
>
>
> Exactly.
>
> For the vast majority of applications I'd never use Fortran.
>
> But I don't use Fortran to write the vast majority of applications. I
> use Fortran to write applications where I've found that it's the best
> language to use. No one language will _ever_ be the answer for every
> application, or even for the vast majority, so I'm not sure quite why
> you're surprised that a language which, surprise surprise, is good for
> some things but not others, is still alive and kicking. Every single
> language out there is in exactly the same boat.
>
> And number crunching is hardly _one_ application, or limited to
> supercomputers, regardless of the language being used.
>
And Fortran is a very good general purpose language suitable for a wide
variety of programming domains.

--

Gary Scott
mailto:garylscott@sbcglobal dot net

Fortran Library: http://www.fortranlib.com

Support the Original G95 Project: http://www.g95.org
-OR-
Support the GNU GFortran Project: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/index.html

If you want to do the impossible, don't hire an expert because he knows
it can't be done.

-- Henry Ford

Luka Djigas wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:29:06 -0700 (PDT), kronecker@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
> mathcad
>
> I find it to be useless for most purposes. As I remember correctly, a
> version which was actual few years ago (2, maybe 3 years ago) had a
> restriction that matrixes cound't have more than a 100 elements. Don't
> know if that changed in the later versions.
>
> I took a matrix, inverted it, and multiplied it with the original one,
> and didn't get the 1 matrix (the one with 1ns on the main diagonal, I
> don't know how is it called in english).
>
>
>>etc etc why the hell would I bother
>>at all? For supercomputing maybe but the vast majority of applications
>>no. Let's examine it closely
>>
>>Maths...yes definately..far superior to all languages.
>>Graphics...never.
>>Embedded systems...never in a million years.
>>Ascii text...not really
>>compilers..you kiddin!
>>AI...never.
>>
>>So it has one main application..Maths number crunching which was what
>>it was invented for. If I was simulating with a parallel super-
>>computer I might use parallel fortran but for most smaller
>>applications..not on your Nelly!
>>
>
>
> Yes, but fortran was never intended for vast majority of applications.
> It was never intended for anything *but* number crunching. It was
> intended just for that, and still serves its purpose very good.
> Personally, I don't recall seeing any other compiled language which is
> even remotely as user friendly as fortran for that purpose.

This is not even close to actual usage of Fortran. It was widely used
as the main systems programming language in addition to assembly on many
computing systems of the past.

>
> But, let's stop now, shall we ?
> In the beginning of the thread there was some discussion whether you
> were a troll or not ? It is now obvious that either you are, so that
> we should end this discussion, or you're not, but you're so poorly
> informed, that you should go and read a little google/wikipedia/books
> on the subject.
>
> Best regards
> Luka


--

Gary Scott
mailto:garylscott@sbcglobal dot net

Fortran Library: http://www.fortranlib.com

Support the Original G95 Project: http://www.g95.org
-OR-
Support the GNU GFortran Project: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/index.html

If you want to do the impossible, don't hire an expert because he knows
it can't be done.

-- Henry Ford

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:53:48 -0500, Gary Scott
<garylscott@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>This is not even close to actual usage of Fortran. It was widely used
>as the main systems programming language in addition to assembly on many
>computing systems of the past.
>

Please, elaborate. What do you mean under "main systesm programming
language" ?



Best regards
Luka

> > Yes, but fortran was never intended for vast majority of applications.
> > It was never intended for anything *but* number crunching. It was
> > intended just for that, and still serves its purpose very good.
> > Personally, I don't recall seeing any other compiled language which is
> > even remotely as user friendly as fortran for that purpose.
>
> This is not even close to actual usage of Fortran. *It was widely used
> as the main systems programming language in addition to assembly on many
> computing systems of the past.

I guess a more correct statement would be "standard Fortran was never
intended for anything but number crunching." Extensions provided the
functionality that made it possible to use Fortran for other tasks.
IMHO.

Victor.

On Aug 20, 9:51*am, Gary Scott <garylsc...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Catherine Rees Lay wrote:
> > kronec...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
> >> For supercomputing maybe but the vast majority of applications
> >> no.
>
> > Exactly.
>
> > For the vast majority of applications I'd never use Fortran.
>
> > But I don't use Fortran to write the vast majority of applications. I
> > use Fortran to write applications where I've found that it's the best
> > language to use. No one language will _ever_ be the answer for every
> > application, or even for the vast majority, so I'm not sure quite why
> > you're surprised that a language which, surprise surprise, is good for
> > some things but not others, is still alive and kicking. Every single
> > language out there is in exactly the same boat.
>
> > And number crunching is hardly _one_ application, or limited to
> > supercomputers, regardless of the language being used.
>
> And Fortran is a very good general purpose language suitable for a wide
> variety of programming domains.
>

I disagree. Although, your definition of "general purpose language" is
different.

Victor.

Luka Djigas wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:53:48 -0500, Gary Scott
> <garylscott@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>>This is not even close to actual usage of Fortran. It was widely used
>>as the main systems programming language in addition to assembly on many
>>computing systems of the past.
>>
>
>
> Please, elaborate. What do you mean under "main systesm programming
> language" ?

Meaning the OS APIs were written in Fortran (and assembly) and tailored
specifically for Fortran. Some OS' even carried over Fortrans concept
of logical file numbers and similar features in the JCL.

>
>
>
> Best regards
> Luka


--

Gary Scott
mailto:garylscott@sbcglobal dot net

Fortran Library: http://www.fortranlib.com

Support the Original G95 Project: http://www.g95.org
-OR-
Support the GNU GFortran Project: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/index.html

If you want to do the impossible, don't hire an expert because he knows
it can't be done.

-- Henry Ford

Fly Away wrote:

> On Aug 20, 9:51 am, Gary Scott <garylsc...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>Catherine Rees Lay wrote:
>>
>>>kronec...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>>>For supercomputing maybe but the vast majority of applications
>>>>no.
>>
>>>Exactly.
>>
>>>For the vast majority of applications I'd never use Fortran.
>>
>>>But I don't use Fortran to write the vast majority of applications. I
>>>use Fortran to write applications where I've found that it's the best
>>>language to use. No one language will _ever_ be the answer for every
>>>application, or even for the vast majority, so I'm not sure quite why
>>>you're surprised that a language which, surprise surprise, is good for
>>>some things but not others, is still alive and kicking. Every single
>>>language out there is in exactly the same boat.
>>
>>>And number crunching is hardly _one_ application, or limited to
>>>supercomputers, regardless of the language being used.
>>
>>And Fortran is a very good general purpose language suitable for a wide
>>variety of programming domains.
>>
>
>
> I disagree. Although, your definition of "general purpose language" is
> different.

I'm using it to access I/O hardware through port read/writes, data
acquisition, low level serial bus (MIL-STD-1553) programming, and
similar "systems programming" tasks. I find that it serves these roles
every bit as well as C, with only a single language extension
(integer/cray/whatever pointers) and some compiler directives. F2003
will all but eliminate my use of those extended features (some day).
The only reason I need them though is that the APIs are written in
another language. They could have been written compatibly but weren't.
So ANY time you want to program using a different language than the
API was written for (a C API and you want to use Ada, PL/1, Smalltalk,
Jovial, Modula, whatever), you would have those interfacing issues to
deal with. True, some languages deal with them better than others, but
Fortran's glacier is about to melt.

>
> Victor.


--

Gary Scott
mailto:garylscott@sbcglobal dot net

Fortran Library: http://www.fortranlib.com

Support the Original G95 Project: http://www.g95.org
-OR-
Support the GNU GFortran Project: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/index.html

If you want to do the impossible, don't hire an expert because he knows
it can't be done.

-- Henry Ford

Fly Away <victor.prosolin@gmail.com> wrote:

> I guess a more correct statement would be "standard Fortran was never
> intended for anything but number crunching."

Since I participated in development of several of the Fortran standards
(and was even editor of 2), and I personally know that I intended it for
other things as well, that's about as direct a disproof of that
statement as there can be.

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