From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_DATE, MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ogicse!emory!hubcap!wtwolfe From: wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu (Bill Wolfe) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Recent CACM "viewpoint" article Message-ID: <8676@hubcap.clemson.edu> Date: 10 Apr 90 17:24:55 GMT Organization: Clemson University, Clemson, SC List-Id: In the April 1990 issue of _Communications of the ACM_, the "viewpoint" section contains an article from Geoffrey Hunter of the York University Chemistry Department, which contends (in response to major flaws in the Fortran-8x proposal): "...Fortran-77 should be retained as the *last* ANSI/ISO Standard dialect, and its deficiencies should be remedied by selection of an established block-structured language (probably Ada, possibly Algol-68) as an alternative to Fortran-8x. Fortran programmers should be advised to switch to this alternative language for their future programming projects. Translation of existing programs should be automated with a Fortran-77 to Ada/Algol-68 pre-processor." Clearly there is some lack of understanding here as to the general advisability of opting for automatic translation, and the important alternate strategy of applying pragma Interface has been overlooked. But the response by David Bailey of the NASA Ames Research Center at Moffett Field is even worse: "I simply do not believe that it is realistic to hope that serious Fortran application programs could be automatically translated to Ada or Algol-68." This will certainly come as a surprise to the companies and projects which have done exactly this on a fairly large scale, to Richard Waychoff (who has implemented the Fortran-to-Ada translator which is available in the Ada Software Repository), and to companies such as Lexeme which are in the business of providing automatic Fortran-to-Ada translation services!! Bailey continues: "We in the large-scale scientific computation community are now moving ahead very seriously with plans to use the highly parallel teraflops-class systems that will be available before the year 2000. In a fairly wide range of applications that we wish to map to these systems, the central time-intensive computations can be expressed easily as array operations. This class of computations certainly includes the large-grid PDE codes that are the mainstay of centers such as ours. The array constructs of the proposed Fortran standard are perfectly suited for this type of computation. They represent the first serious step to prividing standard parallel programming constructs that can be efficiently supported across a variety of parallel systems, including both SIMD and MIMD designs." Is there anyone in NUMWG or 9XWG who'd like to take on this issue? "Hunter summarizes by saying "the only technically rational way of advancing the art of scientific and engineering programming is to abandon Fortran in favor of a modern block-structured language such as Algol-68 or Ada." This suggestion will simply not be taken seriously by the heavy-duty scientific computation community. These users simply cannot walk away from large application programs with 100,000+ lines of code. Also, this suggestion will not be taken seriously by those of us who are exploring highly parallel scientific computation, since at present, there is no prospect of standardizing array computation constructs in any major language except Fortran-8x." Again, the applicability of pragma Interface has been overlooked! Such inaccurate or incomplete information on Ada, *especially* in a publication like CACM, needs to be straightened out very quickly; I hope that in addition to any discussion that might take place here in comp.lang.ada, someone from the SEI will write to CACM to straighten out these two regarding the feasibility (yes) and the general advisability (no) of automatic Fortran-to-Ada translation, as well as the alternative strategy of using pragma Interface, and that someone from NUMWG, 9XWG, or both will write CACM regarding the other technical points raised by Bailey. Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu