Why these original FORTRAN quirks?
in [Fortran]
|
From: Brian Inglis on 28 Oct 2006 11:20 On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 22:00:28 GMT in alt.folklore.computers, Peter Flass <Peter_Flass(a)Yahoo.com> wrote: >Brian Inglis wrote: >> fOn Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:40:05 -0700 in alt.folklore.computers, glen >> herrmannsfeldt <gah(a)ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: >> >> >>>Brian Inglis wrote: >>> >>>(snip on limits in VAX compilers) >>> >>> >>>>>Excel through 2003 still has a limit of 256 columns and 65536 rows, >>>>>no matter how much memory, real or virtual, you have. >>> >>>>>I understand this will be increases in 2007. >>> >>>>They went up from 32K to 64K rows did they? >>> >>>Not official, but it looks like 1M rows and 16K columns. >>> >>> >>>>Gave up on Excel years ago for high volume data. >>> >>>I used it for a project that required it, but mostly I don't use it. >>>I would say that most problems that require that much data >>>(more than 256 columns or 64K rows) are better done by processing data >>>while reading it, not first reading it all in. No matter how big >>>main memory gets, data sources will always be larger. >>> >>>(When I was working on DNA sequence data I once calculate that >>>the exponential growth in DNA data was faster than Moore's law. >>>It has been a consistent 1%/week for some years now.) >>> >>>There is no visual advantage to 1M rows and 16K columns. There is no >>>possible way to view it. >> >> >> Long term trend analysis charts? >> 15 minute samples for a year is over 32K. >> You'd have to put each year on a separate chart, or another line on >> the same chart with a good possibility of interference even on a large >> format plotter. > >I hate to say this, but using a spreadsheet for this is like using a >trowel to dig Lake Mead. I know that "if all you have is a >screwdriver...", but there are lots of graphics programs that could >handle this easily. Think SAS, for example. I don't think I could justify SAS for home, and companies and staff often have to get by with what's made available; only those with a larger machine heritage seem to have expensive products like SAS, because they kept the software around when they downsized machines. -- Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada Brian.Inglis(a)CSi.com (Brian[dot]Inglis{at}SystematicSW[dot]ab[dot]ca) fake address use address above to reply
From: Terence on 28 Oct 2006 20:00 Peter Flass wrote: > I hate to say this, but using a spreadsheet for this is like using a > trowel to dig Lake Mead. I know that "if all you have is a > screwdriver...", but there are lots of graphics programs that could > handle this easily. Think SAS, for example. With respect to Peter whose note I am only using as an example, I see comments like this too often to resist replying at this poin, on the assumptions. SAS is wonderful, sure. Excel comes with Microsoft Office and much else. Winteracter has a great reputation for getting you that GUI you need, sure. But WHOS's money will pay for these add-ons to a stunted Fortran? So many programmers report having several Fortran compilers at their fingertips, and give indications of having other software systems as adjuncts, But the cost of Fortran programming has changed vastly since the early days. I remember that a good Fortran compiler would cost a little over $130, together with one or two good paper manuals; and the AT computer it ran on cost about.$1300. And I remember the two Superbrain computers and the later Burroughs B22 I had where the Fortran allowed using the respective graphics cards, so just the compiler gave me ehat I wanted. I HAD a TUI in those days! And even with a 1970's mainframe IBM computers, the licence for a compiler/linker used to be remarkably cheap in comparison with maintenance or rental costs, even if the output went to a Calcomp. Bill Gates spotted the software market future and IBM didn't; but the costs of using Fortran for any scientific work are becoming ridiculous. If only the compiler vendors would include at least a TUI definition and preferably a GUI as part of the required standard.
From: AeroSpace Ed on 28 Oct 2006 21:52 How can you say this with so many "free" Fortran compilers available?? Not only is there "g77", "gfortran" and "g95", but Intel's and Sun's compilers are now free (with a few restrictions..) I vehemently disagree with your post. Now, more than ever is Fortran accessable to just about anyone, with a low (sometimes, zero) investment. Ed Terence wrote: > Peter Flass wrote: >> I hate to say this, but using a spreadsheet for this is like using a >> trowel to dig Lake Mead. I know that "if all you have is a >> screwdriver...", but there are lots of graphics programs that could >> handle this easily. Think SAS, for example. > > With respect to Peter whose note I am only using as an example, I see > comments like this too often to resist replying at this poin, on the > assumptions. > > SAS is wonderful, sure. > Excel comes with Microsoft Office and much else. > Winteracter has a great reputation for getting you that GUI you need, > sure. > > But WHOS's money will pay for these add-ons to a stunted Fortran? > So many programmers report having several Fortran compilers at their > fingertips, and give indications of having other software systems as > adjuncts, > > But the cost of Fortran programming has changed vastly since the early > days. > I remember that a good Fortran compiler would cost a little over $130, > together with one or two good paper manuals; and the AT computer it ran > on cost about.$1300. > > And I remember the two Superbrain computers and the later Burroughs B22 > I had where the Fortran allowed using the respective graphics cards, so > just the compiler gave me ehat I wanted. I HAD a TUI in those days! > > And even with a 1970's mainframe IBM computers, the licence for a > compiler/linker used to be remarkably cheap in comparison with > maintenance or rental costs, even if the output went to a Calcomp. > > Bill Gates spotted the software market future and IBM didn't; but the > costs of using Fortran for any scientific work are becoming ridiculous. > If only the compiler vendors would include at least a TUI definition > and preferably a GUI as part of the required standard.
From: Gary Scott on 28 Oct 2006 22:47 Terence wrote: > Peter Flass wrote: > >>I hate to say this, but using a spreadsheet for this is like using a >>trowel to dig Lake Mead. I know that "if all you have is a >>screwdriver...", but there are lots of graphics programs that could >>handle this easily. Think SAS, for example. > > > With respect to Peter whose note I am only using as an example, I see > comments like this too often to resist replying at this poin, on the > assumptions. > > SAS is wonderful, sure. > Excel comes with Microsoft Office and much else. > Winteracter has a great reputation for getting you that GUI you need, > sure. > > But WHOS's money will pay for these add-ons to a stunted Fortran? > So many programmers report having several Fortran compilers at their > fingertips, and give indications of having other software systems as > adjuncts, > > But the cost of Fortran programming has changed vastly since the early > days. > I remember that a good Fortran compiler would cost a little over $130, > together with one or two good paper manuals; and the AT computer it ran > on cost about.$1300. > > And I remember the two Superbrain computers and the later Burroughs B22 > I had where the Fortran allowed using the respective graphics cards, so > just the compiler gave me ehat I wanted. I HAD a TUI in those days! > > And even with a 1970's mainframe IBM computers, the licence for a > compiler/linker used to be remarkably cheap in comparison with > maintenance or rental costs, even if the output went to a Calcomp. > > Bill Gates spotted the software market future and IBM didn't; but the > costs of using Fortran for any scientific work are becoming ridiculous. > If only the compiler vendors would include at least a TUI definition > and preferably a GUI as part of the required standard. > It all comes down to market size. Make the programming masses want to use Fortran, the market size will increase and the prices will come down. This means "improving" the language sufficiently that evangelists can begin to turn the tide of "common knowledge" about the deficiencies of Fortran back. -- Gary Scott mailto:garylscott(a)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 Why are there two? God only knows. If you want to do the impossible, don't hire an expert because he knows it can't be done. -- Henry Ford
From: Brooks Moses on 29 Oct 2006 03:31
Gary Scott wrote: > It all comes down to market size. Make the programming masses want to > use Fortran, the market size will increase and the prices will come > down. This means "improving" the language sufficiently that evangelists > can begin to turn the tide of "common knowledge" about the deficiencies > of Fortran back. And there's also the pretty key point that most of people's complaints here about "stunted Fortran" seem to be about things that are handled by OS-interface libraries, not by the langauge itself. The C-compatibility bits of F2003 are fairly significant for fixing that, I think. Beyond that, I think there's a sort of fundamental issue that Fortran's big strengths are in number-crunching of various forms -- those are the places where it's "much better than" rather than just "as good as" -- and that's not really exciting to most of the "programming masses", because it's not what they do. I think Fortran's other big -- and largely unsung -- strength is its development model. As modern languages go, it's a little behind the state of the art, and will probably continue to be so (and I think this is probably a good thing). But it's also backward compatible for three decades. Thus, if I'm starting a new project today, and I expect that in three decades I'll want to be using large parts of it in stuff that's programmed with a relatively modern language three decades hence, I think there's really only one clear choice. C++ will be quite old by then, C will remain a painfully low-level language, and who knows where today's popular things will be. Fortran will still be a decade behind being up-to-date, and will be backward compatible. - Brooks -- The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed. |