Re: another way to shoot yourself in the foot?

[Gary Scott <garylscott@sbcglobal.net>]

Terence wrote:
> SNIP:-
> 
>>Why does Gary Scott's company use almost entirely C++ if Gary Scott recommended Fortran?

Well, a main reason is that vendors don't typically provide 
cross-compilers for Fortran.  I use Fortran for my own data analysis and 
GUI tools development.  The actual company products are hosted in 
embedded processors and the customer dictates various aspects of the 
development process, tools, etc.  Another stated reason is that "it's 
easier to find C programmers than Ada programmers".  That applies to 
just about any other language suitable for real-time programming, 
although one vendor is pushing "real-time" Java.

> 
> 
> I have met this situation many times.
> As an example, a very large Oil Company first wrote its accounting
> software n 1961 in Fortran, using integer arithemetic and separate
> tracking of cents or pennies, on an IBM 1401 (after using plugboard
> hardware). This included payroll.
> 
> Later, following IBM advice they took the PL/1 route after first
> deviating via Cobol (and RPG and Mark4 !).
> 
> Very much later, Cobol, PL/1 and Fortran programmers became hard to
> find, so the C and C++ languages were adopted after a look at Ada and
> much talk with Borland. Basic was considered and actually used for
> quick "stuff". Meanwhile I kept on updating the Fortran compilers and
> the BMD and BMDP mathematical packages (which are/were Fortran IV
> source code).
> 
> The points to consider always are:-
> a) what the programming gurus" on staff think are the best options,
> b) what the personnel staff say are the long-range availability of
> programming candidates and prices,
> c) what the universities and technical colleges have decided to teach
> for problem-solving, especially to electrical, engineering and
> geophysical/geology and mining students.
> 
> What a company finally decides on, can differ, even when competing in
> the same fields.
> And so long-term computer expert staff may know one language is far
> better for the company's future, through years of exposure and use of
> alternatives, yet have to bow to instructives based on economic
> forces.
> 
> One solution I was not able to implement, was to take any new
> programmers willing and available, and re-teach them a reasoned,
> chosen and company-wide imposed language, which would have been
> Fortran IV (over PL/1 by a hair) and of course going to F90 as soon an
> F95 became available, one sure step behind.
> 
> I DID manage to get the concept accepted of hard-disk computer
> workstations instead of terminals and maninframes well before it
> became glaringly obvious as cheaper and more flexible.
> Intercommunication was via minicomputers as message and file-passing
> nodes and central file back-up and archiving points.


-- 

Gary Scott
mailto:garylscott@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

If you want to do the impossible, don't hire an expert because he knows 
it can't be done.

-- Henry Ford