Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog

[Dave McGuire]

On Feb 8, 2010, at 7:32 PM, N0body H0me wrote:
>>> Here, here.  The thing that impressed me about FORTRAN (well, as
>>> as science major, anyway) was that it could do complex numbers as
>>> a *NATIVE* datatype!!  Now, I know for you OOP and C++ guys, custom,
>>> exotic datatypes are a dime a dozen. But in 1980, I was sure glad
>>> I could do complex math without all of the extra baggage that would
>>> have been necessary if I had to use, say, BASIC-Plus.
>>
>>    Yeah, but how often do those C++ custom exotic datatypes map to
>> real datatypes supported by the hardware?  (in other words, which
>> ones will actually be FAST?)
>
> That's certainly an issue.  I wonder how many applications are  
> slower and more overweight due to their being crafted with OOP than  
> they would be if they were coded using more traditional methods.

   "More traditional methods"?  Just "the way processors execute  
code" would be a good start.  Processors aren't object-oriented in  
nature.  This is one of the reasons why we have computers with multi- 
GHz processors that barely get out of their own way.  The constructs  
commonly used in OO programming don't come anywhere close to mapping  
to hardware efficiently.

> Our school didn't have a float point unit on our PDP-11; I was
> *certain* that DEC's FORTRAN compiler could generate much faster
> code than anything I could bodge together using BASIC (of any stripe),
> and I could code it in less time.

   Indeed.  What model of -11 was it?  My first PDP-11, an 11/34a  
around 1985 or so, came with an FP-11A.  I spent many a late night  
hacking on fun stuff like fractal algorithms and such, much to my  
grandmother's annoyance.  It'd be 2AM on a school night, she'd trudge  
by my bedroom door in her slippers and bathrobe, and I'd look up from  
my terminal and see her glaring at me, her annoyed face illuminated  
only by the "ready" lights of the RL02s and RK07, and the KY11-LB  
displays on the 11/34a.  The FP-11A was one of my favorite parts of  
that system.

> My principal fascination with FORTRAN from the beginning, was
> that it had this 'purpose built' feature to easily handle complex
> math (and it did it quite well, IIRC).  I have great respect for
> individuals who insist on purpose-built tools.

   It was built to solve problems that often involved complex  
numbers.  I respect it for the same reason.  I'm also impressed with  
it because it's *fast* for Big Math.

             -Dave

-- 
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL