From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler on

Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis(a)SystematicSW.Invalid> writes:
> 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.

recent post about using multiple regression analysis to identify a
significant performance improvement (large financial application that
ran for hours on large number of fully decked out mainframes)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006s.html#24 Curiousity: CPU % for COBOL program

I was using a free package off the web that had various limits on the
number of variables that it could handle ... which would have been
pretty much eliminated using SAS.

the original reference to performance analysis work in the early and
mid-70s at the science center
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech

that eventually evolved into things like capacity planning
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#bench

had used multiple regression analysis from the fortran scientific
subroutine library. i have some vague memory that when the scientific
subroutine library was discontinued ... all of that stuff was possibly
picked up by SAS.

the other language that was used extensively in that period was APL
.... including significant amount of performance and system modeling.
One such (APL) application from the science center eventually evolved into
the "performance predictor" available on the internal HONE system
providing worldwide support to field, sales, and marketing people
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#hone

customer profile information could be input (workload, configuration,
performance, etc) and "what-if" questions could be asked regarding
what happens if there were changes in workload and/or configuration.

in the 70s and 80s there was quite a bit of use of APL for modeling
and "what-if" scenarios ... a lot of which subsequently migrated to
various spreadsheet technologies.




From: Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj 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.
>
't aint just the compiler! There's a bunch of other supposting
software tied in :(

From: Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj on
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj wrote:

> AeroSpace Ed wrote:
>
>>
>> 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
>>
> Please tell me more, in some detail.
> I have a Pentium 3 computer running Windows 98 and am setting up a
> replacement 1.6GHz Pentium 4 with Windows XP.
> What low cost pieces of software do I need in order to write and
> run Fortran programs that will draw graphs on my screen & printer
> on these two systems.
>
> My email address is good.
> Advance thanks

Thank yous to:
- Roger Ivie <rivie(a)ridgenet.net>:
Ah. Well, if it's windows you're using, you should look into
Watcom. See http://www.openwatcom.org/ .

- mrr(a)pilt.reistad.priv.no (Morten Reistad):
I don't know what graphics you need; these Windows API's
tend to be very C-based.

Anyway, Fortran is now a part of the GCC suite of compilers,
referenced as g77; but it supports the F66, F77 and F90 standards.

I would assume cygwin can support fortran based programs now;
and cygwin can be downloaded and run on most windows-based
machines under gnu terms.

AND
- Brian.Inglis(a)SystematicSW.ab.ca :

gnuplot / plotlib, scilab / plotlib, dislin, various others.
Mingw supports g77 and g95, probably 4.x series.
Cygwin supports g77 3.4 and g95 ?.?.
DJGPP supports the 4.x series of compilers.
G95 ports may not be available as a standard package in the
distribution, in which case you download then issue the standard build
commands: cd src ; tar xvf ... ; ./configure ; make all install.
You first have to download and install the standard autotools, shell,
utilities, development tools to be able to do this. These packages are
normally well documented in the distribution.


But my request is with malice aforethought. :)
Note my system(s) Microsoft Windows. (on, of course, Intel 86 type
cpus.) , and I asked for all the pieces of software needed.
That turns out to be a bunch more that just a compiler.:
- Compiler running on Windos OS(es)
- Linker/binder/loader for OS(es) and particular object formats
- Librarian
- Execution libraries
- Graphics libraries (compatible with above)
and with graphics card being used.
- Printer driving software.
............

Supposedly $$$ would solve the problems handily.
/BAH mentioned $50K.

So come one, come all. I'm waiting for your suggestions
of software with approximate prices.
Disk space and central memory shouldn't be a problem
I have .75Gb or 1.25Gb central memory and ~30Gb of free
disk space on the two machines.
I'm willing to bet that the suggestions will be 1st
instal Linux, then ...
...Oh the $$$ are coming out of my SS Dole. No deep
pockets govt. of commercial funding.
--
Rostyk




From: Richard Maine on
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj <urjlew(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Anyway, Fortran is now a part of the GCC suite of compilers,
> referenced as g77; but it supports the F66, F77 and F90 standards.

No, g77 does not suport f90. It supports a few isolated f90 features,
but few of the major ones. It makes no pretext of being an f90 compiler.

You are probably confusing g77 and gfortran. GFortran is part of the GCC
suite. It does support f90/f95, as well as f77.... and sort of f66,
though I'm not sure that many compilers today actually support all of
f66. But GFortran is not the same thing as g77. You are probably
confusing them because g77 used to be part of the GCC suite, whereas
GFortan now is. This does not mean that they are the same compiler -
they are completely different. (And then there is g95, which is also a
free f95 and earlier compiler, but not part of GCC).

--
Richard Maine | Good judgement comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement.
domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
From: Peter Flass on
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj wrote:
>
> But my request is with malice aforethought. :)
> Note my system(s) Microsoft Windows. (on, of course, Intel 86 type
> cpus.) , and I asked for all the pieces of software needed.
> That turns out to be a bunch more that just a compiler.:
> - Compiler running on Windos OS(es)
> - Linker/binder/loader for OS(es) and particular object formats
> - Librarian
> - Execution libraries
> - Graphics libraries (compatible with above)
> and with graphics card being used.
> - Printer driving software.

You've always had this problem. It'd just that what is considered a
basic set of software for a machine has changed. You used to always get
the linker and librarian - that's the way OS/2 comes. For windoze, you
get at least items 1-4 bundled with the compiler. 5 and 6 are part of
the OS, but the low-level graphics API provided might not be the easiest
to use. I would expect any higher-level graphics package you decide to
use would deal equally well with display or printer.

> ............
>
> Supposedly $$$ would solve the problems handily.
> /BAH mentioned $50K.
>
> So come one, come all. I'm waiting for your suggestions
> of software with approximate prices.

You've alreay been given this: g77 or Watcom Fortran, and wxWindows,
gnuplot or similar depending on how high-level you want your graphics.
Total cost - $0.00

I've used the emx version of gcc for years on OS/2, and found it in many
ways better than a commercial compiler, and better-supported, too. Now
I'd probably pick Innotek gcc or Watcom. Sorry I'm not a Fortran user,
so I can't comment on the quality of the Fortran compilers, but they use
the same back-ends as C, so the resulting code should be pretty good.