On Aug 22, 3:15Â pm, "James Giles"
worldnet.att.net> wrote:> Fly Away wrote:
>> Task - text processing. Fortran doesn't have regular expressions. I
>> haven't seen any Fortran libraries that do that. This, of course,
>> doesn't mean they don't exist, but I haven't been able to find one.
>
> I've written support for them. Â The code belongs to a former
> employer, or I'd just post it. Â It's not hard. Â But - it's a library
> issue, not a language issue. Â Or do you think libraries are
> part of the language? Â That's *really* wierd. Â
Libraries are a huge part of the reason why one language would be
chosen over another.
> I've not
> recently found a Fortran from which I couldn't call such
> library routines if I needed them. Â (You would probably be
> surprised at how little value such things have for tasks such
> as compiler construction.
Not all of us write compilers. I just like the power of sed for
various things, but I don't always have it installed.
>> Task - file manipulation. Can you create a folder or copy a file in a
>> portable standard conforming way?
>
> Not in Fortran. Â Not in any language.
See "Scripting languages".
>Â The concept of "folder"
> (or "directory", "path", etc) is not portable. Â Some systems haven't
> got them. Some systems haven't got files at all.
The concept of "folder" and "file" is way too common now to ignore it.
How often does one write software in Fortran for such systems?
Even Fortran reads from and writes to files. That's why you code:
open(unit=100, FILE='file.txt')
>> Task - using basic well established algorithms like all kinds of
>> sorting. To make it portable you would either have to write your own
>> implementation, i.e. reinvent the wheel, or resort to a library most
>> likely written in another language that will probably impose licensing
>> restrictions.
>
> Never met a sorting algorithm I couldn't code *more* legibly in
> Fortran.
I consider coding something that's been implemented a million times
before me by a lot smarter people a waste of time. See "reinventing
the wheel". Besides, what are the chances my implementation could be
better, if not much worse?
>Â Many of the old, and still most used, were *invented*
> by Fortran programmers. Â (Maybe you are confused by the
> fact that most publications presented algorithms in Algol?
> I've seen places that didn't even *have* an Algol implementation,
> and they sent their new algorithms to press written in Algol.
> It's kind of like scientists until the 20th century: always publishing
> in Latin even though most didn't speak Latin or use it in their
> work.)
I am too young to know Algol...
>
>> Task - Web programming. I am not sure even how to approach this in
>> Fortran. I think generating web pages using the write statement would
>> be weird and unnatural. Accessing web services from Fortran... Or
>> writing one... How would you do that?
>
> I have no I idea what problem you're addressing. Â I use tools, not
> languages, to write web pages.
A language is a tool too.
>Â If you are
> not presented with choices, that fact doesn't demonstrate
> any weakness of the languages that you couldn't choose.
If I am presented with a choice I will have to know beforehand what
tool I have to use. I can't afford to find out the tool was not
suitable for the task post factum. It actually has happened to me...
> Implement Fortran support on web browsers, and we'll
> see that it is suitable.
What is "Fortran support on web browsers"?
>> Task - graphics. Third party libraries seem like the only option. Not
>> that it's different in many other languages, but there are lots more
>> options available outside the Fortran world. Especially in open-
>> source.
>
> Libraries (as mentioned above) are callable from Fortran no matter
> what language they're in.
I am not sure it is always the case. I'd say that Fortran is callable
from most languages.
>
>> [...] Yes, it is
>> complicated, some concepts are implemented better in other languages,
>> but yet I can't understand your complete denial of the strengths that
>> C ++ has. Calling C/C++ an enemy is just beyond my comprehension. It's
>> merely a tool. How can you get so emotional about it?
>
> You're the emotional one. Â I'm not particularly interested in C or
> C++ anymore because I no longer use them. When I suppored
> C compilers, I knew more about it than any three random users
> you would care to name. Â If I have a disrespect for the language,
> it's because I know it very well indeed.
You don't have to be _interested_ in a language to avoid cursing it.
> The real question, the the one that points to an emotional
> issue, is someone coming into a forum for users of a given
> language and telling them what they shouldn't be using the
> language for.
Not that it should matter for this particular discussion, but I've
been regularly reading this newsgroup for several years. I haven't
posted much though, because most of discussions were interesting to me
"read only". So it's not like I just accidentally found this thread
and decided to clash with the local folk.
Another point - I am not telling anyone what they should or shouldn't
use. I have an opinion, I express it. You respond. Noone has to make
decisions based on it. If I learn something useful I will consider it.
I am completely open for new knowledge. It's just that I prefer a more
peaceful discussions without personal references :)
> Â Especially telling people that *have* successfully
> written just such applications in Fortran. Â Many of whom know
> and have used dozens of languages and who chose Fortran
> because they found it *better* than the alternatives.
That's the key point. They know it better, not because it's superior
to all other languages.
>>>> And while we're at it, why do you believe
>>>> that application domain is even relevant to the issue of language
>>>> suitability?
>
>> I can't make sense of this question... Your wording often confuses me.
>> If you need to write an application you look for a suitable tool
>> (language). If you need to put a nail in the wall, you use a hummer,
>> not a microscope. So a hammer is more suitable for this kind of work
>> than a microscope. Is this relevant enough?
>
> Programming languages aren't hammers or microscopes. Â The analogy
> is so completely bogus that there's no value to glean from it at all.
Programming languages are tools. Microscopes and hammers are tools.
This analogy is as bogus as your original question.
> Programming languages are multiplex tools. Â Almost all of them have
> the same collection of capabilities. Â Fortran and C, for example, are
> practically isomorphic. Â The set of applications each is suited to is
> the *same* set. Â What distinguishes them is which makes code easier
> to write, read, verify, correct, extend, or maintain.
That's why some languages become popular and widely used and others
fade and become a small niche language no matter how perfect in theory
they are. ...I am not pointing fingers here.
> There have been objective experiments to measure the effect of
> language features on programmer productivity. Â (There haven't
> been enough of them, and since the results usually gore some
> important sacred cows they aren't widely reported. Â And people
> with vested interests to protect lobby against funding them.
So it's a conspiracy against Fortran, right?
Cheers,
Victor.
