18 Dec
2007
18 Dec
'07
2:50 a.m.
From: Chris M <chrism3667 at yahoo.com>
I realize that old doggies die hard, but who except
for the scientific/engineering crowd would want to
create new apps, and for what reason? I imagine there
could be some good reasons to port old (iron?) code to
peecees, but gcc can compile FORTRAN already (albeit
only F77).
Dear me, where do I start?
For me, FORTRAN is hugely efficient. It's one of the few languages
where folks on the ANSI working group actually spend their careers
writing automatic optimizers for the language and will raise a stink
where a particular construct does not lend itself to efficient or
safe optimization. Some of the optimizations performed by the top-
end compilers are amazing to the point of one smacking one's forehead
and saying, "Damn, that's clever!"
At least at one time, it was true that FORTRAN was one of the most
portable language, executing on the widest range of systems. I think
one of the advertised attractions of the PDP 8/L that contributed to
its success was that it could speak FORTRAN. Some of the earliest
cross-assemblers that I ever saw were written in FORTRAN, that would
pretty much run on any system that supported the language.
This was back in the days when USASCII was a character set used on
the minority of computer systems; not all were 2's complement (or
even binary). Yet you could write a cross assembler (and probably a
compiler) that would run on anything.
I know of operating systems written in FORTRAN, as well as great
hunks of several compilers. I even wrote my early data conversion
routines on CP/M using FORTRAN for most of the code.
FORTRAN used to have the only really reliable math routines.
It's not a bad language to have under your belt.
Does ACM CALGO still accept FORTRAN as a permissible source language?
Cheers,
Chuck
18 Dec
18 Dec
1:26 p.m.
A REAL programmer can write a FORTRAN program in any language.
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, Chuck Guzis wrote:
At least at one time, it was true that FORTRAN was one
of the most
portable language, executing on the widest range of systems. I think
"more transportable than Syphilis"
The definition of FORTRAN from the "Devil's DP Dictionary", by
Stan Kelly-Bootle:
"FORTRAN n. [Acronym for FORmula TRANslating system.]
One of the earliest languages of any real height, level-wise, developed
out of Speedcoding by Backus and Ziller for the IBM/704 in the mid 1950s
in order to boost the sale of 80-column cards to engineers.
In spite of regular improvements(including a recent option called
'STRUCTURE'), it remains popular among engineers but despised elsewhere.
Many rivals, with the benefit of hindsight, have crossed swords with
the old workhorse ! Yet FORTRAN gallops on, warts and all, more
transportable than syphilis, fired by a bottomless pit of working
subprograms. Lacking the compact power of APL, the intellectually
satisfying elegance of ALGOL 68, the didactic incision of Pascal, and the
spurned universality of PL/I, FORTRAN survives, nay, FLOURISHES, thanks
to a superior investmental inertia."
http://sysprog.net/quotcob.html
If it weren't for FORTRAN, I wouldn't have ended up here.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
6:27 p.m.
--- Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote:
A REAL programmer can write a FORTRAN program in any
language.
O man don't tell me that means a *real* pwogwammer
knows how to use the <TAB> key. Or spends half his
coding time running the spacebar.
"more transportable than Syphilis"
ewww. Nietschze is dead LOL LOL LOL
In spite of regular improvements(including a
recent option called
'STRUCTURE'), it remains popular among engineers
but despised elsewhere.
Unlikely the F variant (OO) is popular amongst
engineers. But what do I know.
FORTRAN survives,
nay, FLOURISHES, thanks
to a superior investmental inertia."
No, I think some people are just too lazy to learn a
new language LOL LOL. Actually if all the FORTRAN
code, libraries and all, were transformed into say C
or even C++ overnight, would the world be a better
place? The Intel Compiler I think plugs right into
Visual C++ GUI. For what all that mess is worth.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
7:34 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great Chris M once stated:
Nope. There are certain optimizations you can do in Fortran that you
can't do in C because of the language semantics. Given the hypothetical
code:
int y;
int foo(int *px)
{
int a;
int b;
int c;
a = y;
*px = a * 2;
c = y;
...
}
The compiler is hampered with this code. It would be much faster if the
compiler could do:
move.w (y),d0
move.w d0,a(sp)
move.w d0,c(sp)
add.w d0,d0
move.w d0,[px(sp)]
(and if my syntax is a bit off, please forgive me, I don't have my 68k
references handy right now)
But the C compiler can't do that because it can't know if px points to y.
So it has to be rather conservative in code generation:
move.w (y),d0
move.w d0,a(sp)
add.w d0,d0
move.w do,[px(sp)]
move.w (y),d0
move.w d0,c(sp)
Not much difference, but when you're writing code that takes a year to run,
it does add up.
Fortran also supports complex numbers. It may even support vector
operations like (borrowing a C like-syntax):
double A[MAXSIZE];
double B[MAXSIZE];
double C[MAXSIZE];
C = A + B;
which does the equivilent of:
for (i = 0 ; i < MAXSIZE ; i++)
C[i] = A[i] + B[i];
or
for (pa = A , pb = B , pc = C , i = 0 ; i < MAXSIZE ; i++)
*pc++ = *pa++ + *pb++;
or whatever is faster for the CPU architecture.
I do know that the newer C standard (C99) has attempted to address some of
these issues, but not all of them.
-spc (Now? Where is my Numerical Recipies book again?)
FORTRAN survives,
nay, FLOURISHES, thanks
to a superior investmental inertia."
No, I think some people are just too lazy to learn a
new language LOL LOL. Actually if all the FORTRAN
code, libraries and all, were transformed into say C
or even C++ overnight, would the world be a better
place?
6:17 p.m.
--- Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
Oi next time start by actually answering my question!
OI!
From: Chris M
<chrism3667 at yahoo.com>
I realize that old doggies die hard, but who
except
for the scientific/engineering crowd would want
to
create new apps, and for what reason? I imagine
there
could be some good reasons to port old (iron?)
code to
peecees, but gcc can compile FORTRAN already
(albeit
only F77).
Dear me, where do I start? For me, FORTRAN is hugely efficient. It's one of
the few languages
where folks on the ANSI working group actually spend
their careers
writing automatic optimizers for the language and
will raise a stink
where a particular construct does not lend itself to
efficient or
safe optimization.
I get the basic jist of what you're saying I guess.
Can you a counter example for clarity?
Some of the optimizations
performed by the top-
end compilers are amazing to the point of one
smacking one's forehead
and saying, "Damn, that's clever!"
This is going to sound like a stupid question, but
given it's typical applications - scientific and
engineering - why the need for such speed? Another
stupid question. Would a modernish pc port lend itself
well to writing some kind of modernish game?
Who else besides the world's worst nerds use it? And
along those lines was COBOL used for anything other
then business apps?
I know of operating systems written in FORTRAN, as
well as great
hunks of several compilers.
A penny for those thoughts...
I even wrote my early
data conversion
routines on CP/M using FORTRAN for most of the code.
Relate to disk archiving? Ok dumb question.
FORTRAN used to have the only really reliable math
routines.
Oh you don't say. What other languages have reliable,
presumably floating-point capability today? What's gcc
like? Are there cheap Windoze implements?
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
7:15 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great Chris M once stated:
Mathematical simulations.
Back in college, I wrote a program (in C, didn't really have a Fortran
compiler for the platform) that did a horrendous number of calculations
(looking for attractors---please don't ask for more of an explanation as I
didn't even really understand what my employer was looking for, but I could
write the program to his specifications) that took a year to run. Even a
10% improvement in speed would have nocked a month off the run time [1].
Some of the optimizations
performed by the top-
end compilers are amazing to the point of one
smacking one's forehead
and saying, "Damn, that's clever!"
This is going to sound like a stupid question, but
given it's typical applications - scientific and
engineering - why the need for such speed? Another
stupid question. Would a modernish pc port lend itself
well to writing some kind of modernish game?
Probably not. Games typically simplify the physics, and use a lot of
tricks to get "acceptable" looking results, not "accurate" results.
There's
a difference there.
-spc (Who's old enough to have taken Fortran in college ... )
[1] Last year, I did some tests, and was sad (and amazed) to see that
the same problem I did over a decade previously would have taken
maybe a week on a modern quad-core machine. Then again, had I such
equipment available to me back then, the work off the backend would
have possibly taken a year [2].
[2] The program generated images that needed to be run together into an
animation and transferred to VCS tape. The editing of the results
alone took several days of constant work.
6061
days inactive
6062
days old
6 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
cclist＠sydex.com -
chrism3667＠yahoo.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
spc＠conman.org