From: jmfbahciv on
In article <lbt6k21t4lc5c9n1o4c2bi7hna51a048ir(a)4ax.com>,
Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis(a)SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote:
>fOn Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:52:18 +0200 in alt.folklore.computers, Jan
>Vorbr?ggen <jvorbrueggen(a)not-mediasec.de> wrote:
>
>>> VMS had a number of these boneheaded mini-computer heritages of one
>>> and two byte hardcoded limits, including a limit of 255 spool queues
>>> for all purposes: kind of limiting when even moderate sized companies
>>> have more than 255 printers scattered around the LAN.
>>
>>That's all nice and well from today's - or even a decade-back - perspective.
>>However, the first VAXen came out with 256 kB of main memory, and we
actually
>>had one with 512 kB (for about a hundred users...) for some time. Hey, the
>>boot code was enhanced to patch VMS instructions on the fly when it detected
>>that the system had more than 65535 fluid pages (32 MB)...
>
>PDP-11s had 2MW/4MB memory: that should have been the low end *design*
>point for the VAX; not precluding actual machines with smaller memory.
>Who did they think were going to buy VAXen?

Guess.. [very glum emoticon here]


<snip>

/BAH
From: Peter Flass on
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.
>

Partly it's supply and demand. In the good old days, "everyone" used a
compiler. Most systems would have been unthinkable without compilers
for several languages, and nearly everyone who used a computer usually
had to do at least some programming.

Now fewer and fewer people develop software that is used by more and
more people. The market for compilers is becoming more limited, but the
cost of developing a compiler is not decreasing nearly as rapidly, so
the prices of commercial compilers have jumped.

OTOH, Gnu now has free compilers for many systems, not just C/C++ but
Ada, FORTRAN, and soon PL/I. Watcom also has free C/C++ and FORTRAN for
various x86 systems. If the compilers are not as up-to-date as you
want, the responsibility for updating them falls on the users. You have
to pay, one way or another.

From: jmfbahciv on
In article <1162080057.213334.46970(a)f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Terence" <tbwright(a)cantv.net> 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,

<snip>

>Bill Gates spotted the software market future and IBM didn't; but the
>costs of using Fortran for any scientific work are becoming ridiculous.

<snip>

What lanugage do you think scientists use instead of FORTRAN?

I know of one site that is willing to spend $50K/year(est.) for
a language because the development and support and agility to
do the computer work the scientists need is worth it.

/BAH



/BAH


From: Gary Scott on
Brooks Moses wrote:
> 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.
>

You don't think that F2003 isn't a substantial catch-up? I can only
think of a small number of improvements to increase its broad appeal.


> - Brooks
>
>


--

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: Gary Scott on
Peter Flass wrote:

> 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.
>>
>
> Partly it's supply and demand. In the good old days, "everyone" used a
> compiler. Most systems would have been unthinkable without compilers
> for several languages, and nearly everyone who used a computer usually
> had to do at least some programming.
>
> Now fewer and fewer people develop software that is used by more and
> more people. The market for compilers is becoming more limited, but the
> cost of developing a compiler is not decreasing nearly as rapidly, so
> the prices of commercial compilers have jumped.
>
> OTOH, Gnu now has free compilers for many systems, not just C/C++ but
> Ada, FORTRAN, and soon PL/I. Watcom also has free C/C++ and FORTRAN for
> various x86 systems. If the compilers are not as up-to-date as you
> want, the responsibility for updating them falls on the users. You have
> to pay, one way or another.
>
Not as up to date, not as robust, and quite often the case for open
source, not very well designed.


--

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