On Aug 22, 4:58Â pm, "James Giles"
worldnet.att.net> wrote:> Fly Away wrote:
>> On Aug 22, 3:15 pm, "James Giles"
worldnet.att.net> wrote:> ...
>>> I've written support for them. The code belongs to a former
>>> employer, or I'd just post it. It's not hard. But - it's a library
>>> issue, not a language issue. Or do you think libraries are
>>> part of the language? That's *really* wierd.
>
>> Libraries are a huge part of the reason why one language would be
>> chosen over another.
>
> And which library is it that Fortran can't call? Â None? Â That's
> what I thought too.
You really can't think of a library Fortran can't call? Like you don't
know any and that means there are none?
>>> I've not
>>> recently found a Fortran from which I couldn't call such
>>> library routines if I needed them. (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.
>
> Sed is not something I would use Fortran to do. Â 99.99%% of
> all sed-like operations I do ar in a text editor. Â No language
> involved at all. Â You can't oppose Fortran for things no one
> recommends it for. That's silly.
I said "the power of sed", not sed itself. Speaking of silly, good
luck on doing, for example, search and replace on thousands of files
in a text editor.
>
>>>> Task - file manipulation. Can you create a folder or copy a file in
>>>> a portable standard conforming way?
>
>>> Not in Fortran. Not in any language.
>> See "Scripting languages".
>
> I've seen them. Â They aren't portable. Â The don't run at all on
> systems that don't support the environment they assume. Â Were'nt
> you the one that dismissed Fortran because it couldn't do things
> portably?
What mythical systems are you referring to? Refrigerators, hair-
dryers? Scripting languages are portable across systems - that's one
of their major advantages. They are no less portable than Fortran
these days.
>>> I have no I idea what problem you're addressing. I use tools, not
>>> languages, to write web pages.
>
>> A language is a tool too.
>
> It's a tool building tool, not a web page builting tool.
It is a tool. What you use it for is none of my concern. You can
generate web pages with it or you can generate other tools that
generate web pages. That's not what I was talking about.
>
>>> 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...
>
> Wait a minute, you were the one that criticized Fortran users for
> not moving to more modern things. Â Now you're recommending that
> choices be disregarded that don't match your preconcieved notions?
First you learn something, then you apply it. No "pre-concieved
notions" involved.
> And what do you do if *none* of the choices match you prior
> experience?
Then you are not qualified for the job. It's that simple.
>Â That happend a lot in computing.
I don't believe it happens as often as you imply. One doesn't face an
extraordinary problem every single day.
>> You don't have to be _interested_ in a language to avoid cursing it.
>
> I don't have encyclopedic knowledge of the Harry Potter
> universe: so what curse have I uttered? Â
Avada kedavra. :)
>> 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 :)
>
> Then you should adopt that attitude in your own articles.
I am trying my best, but with you as an opponent it's a bit of a
challenge.
>
>>> Especially telling people that *have* successfully
>>> written just such applications in Fortran. 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.
>
> What part of the preceeding paragraph didn't you read? Â I said
> nothing  about what language people knew better.
My bad. I sometimes scan through text too fast. That's my "thing".
> ...
>
>>> Programming languages are multiplex tools. Almost all of them have
>>> the same collection of capabilities. Fortran and C, for example, are
>>> practically isomorphic. The set of applications each is suited to is
>>> the *same* set. 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.
>
> Popularity and quality are not in any way correlated in computing.
> If you believe they are, you have to explain the popularity of
> Windows.
That's a long story and off-topic, but I don't think it was so
unreasonable. Nowadays it is, but historically I think it was
logical.
>>> There have been objective experiments to measure the effect of
>>> language features on programmer productivity. (There haven't
>>> been enough of them, and since the results usually gore some
>>> important sacred cows they aren't widely reported. And people
>>> with vested interests to protect lobby against funding them.
>
>> So it's a conspiracy against Fortran, right?
>
> So, *you're* the one that prefers "more peaceful discussions
> without personal references". Â Sure. Â
I think the popularity of computer languages is more or less
explainable without referring to lobbyists. That's my point.
> I think you may be the
> guy trying to sell bridges in New York City we always hear
> about.
I wish I lived in NYC. Maybe some day I will. I have a friend there,
maybe he is the guy?
> Â Sometimes you almost sound like you have serious
> intent - then you resort to statements that almost justify
> killfiling.
I always have serious intent. But some of your statements just tick me
off.
>
> Make up your mind. Â Are you really interested in a discussion,
> or are you really trolling. Â Stop pretending to both.
Let's just stick to serious discussion.
Cheers,
Victor.
