Slashdot Mirror
Fortress: The Successor to Fortran?
An anonymous reader writes "A draft specification of the Fortress language was recently released. Developed by Sun Microsystems as part of a DARPA-funded supercomputing initiative, Fortress is intended to be a successor to Fortran. Guy Steele, a co-author of Java and member of the Fortress development team, hopes that Fortress will to 'do for Fortran what Java did for C.' Steele admits that Java isn't probably the best choice for numerical computing, and that 'it's a mistake to try to make a programming language that is all things to all people... because the needs are so diverse.' Fortress has a number of interesting features, including support for Unicode characters in code, enabling code to look more like formal mathematical expressions. More information about Fortress is given in interview with Steele, and in a talk by Steele. There's also some interesting commentary on Fortress, including some commentary by a member of the Fortress development team, in response to two stories at the programming languages weblog Lambda the Ultimate."
From the article: "Guy Steele leads a small team of researchers in Burlington, Massachusetts, who are taking on an enormous challenge -- create a programming language better than Java." I tried to think of a witty aside, but I realized I didn't have to.
#include ".signature"
I don't think I want to learn this language...
I thought Mathematica was the successor to Fortran. Why don't they just improve the Mathematica calc engine for parallel/distributed supercomputing?
--
make install -not war
Hardly. In fact, as I read the introductory sections of the spec, I found a lot of it was exactly the ideas I would have designed into a language myself, as someone who writes mathematical code for a living.
I took a bit of a sideswipe at the whitespace rules in a post below, but aside from those (which I think will die long before the final language is released, "natural" notation or not) a lot of the features look good. Things like first order functions and multiple dispatch suggest much stronger handling of functions than any mainstream language today, which is always good for a language that's going to talk about maths seriously. The consideration given to issues of parallel processing is also well beyond anything else in common usage at present, and that's surely one of the key directions serious programming languages are going to go in over the next decade as hardware becomes more and more about multi-processing rather than just Bigger And Faster(TM).
I must admit, though, that I did start to get bogged down towards the end of the section on the basics, and found it difficult to get stuck into the more advanced stuff at all, even with my CS language theory hat on.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I wouldn't call Fortan the worst programming language ever; COBOL takes the cake (all of those long words for everything, geez!). It's actually still used heavily in scientific computing, and even though it started out like something that looks like the monostrities of COBOL and BASIC (such as goto statements everywhere, forced indentation, verbosity, and other stuff), the lastest standards of Fortran look decent and have a lot of features that languages such as C has and looks like it has became a much better language. For example, Fortran now supports dynamic memory allocation, structure (such as if...else statements and looping), recursion, arrays, operator overloading, records, and more. The features of the language aren't bad.
Fortran's niche is in scientific computing and numerical computing, since not too many languages come close. It's not the best language for every application, but it works well for scientists and mathematicians.
From the FORTRAN FAQ (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/fortran-faq/) :
FORTRAN and C have different semantics. A FORTRAN optimizer knows more about aliasing, function interactions, and I/O. A C optimizer has to infer or compute such information. C bigots typically have neither written such optimizers nor worked with folks who do it for a living, and are prone to dismiss such arguments as being petty and neolithic. FORTRAN programmers are often a bit more in touch with high performance computing, and are unwilling to bet that heavily on compiler wizardry.
There is a vast body of existing FORTRAN code (much of which is publically available and of high quality). Numerical codes are particularly difficult to "vet", scientific establishments usually do not have large otherwise idle programming staffs, etc. so massive recoding into any new language is typically resisted quite strongly.
Fortran tends to meet some of the needs of scientists better. Most notably, it has built in support for: - variable dimension array arguments in subroutines - a compiler-supported infix exponentiation operator which is generic with respect to both precision and type, *and* which is generally handled very efficiently or the commonly occuring special case floating-point**small-integer - complex arithmetic - generic-precision intrinsic functions
As far as I understand it, it is due to the inability of a compiler to optimise execution flow where pointers are involved.
With C etc. you cannot know at compile time how much space the data referred to by a pointer will consume, or what it will be. This makes optimising certain routines w/regard to data alignment and packing difficult or impossible compared to FORTRAN.
Various mathematical routines run a hell of a lot faster under FORTRAN than they do under C becauase the FORTRAN compiler knows ahead of time exactly 'what it is getting', and can thus make a decision as to how to feed that data to the CPU to take advantage of its register, cache and instruction scheduling characteristics but sacrifices the flexibility of the 'data structure languages' like C.
Implementing complex, dynamic structures of arbitary 'objects' is childs play with C but something that would drive you batsh*t crazy using FORTRAN.
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
that Guy Steele has no beard. According to a previous article (can't seem to be able to find it) on Slashdot, this means that this programming language will never become mainstream. When will new language designers realize that they need a beard to break through?
I like my dinosaurs feathery, and my pterosaurs hairy (or is it pycnofibery?)
The successor to Fortran, is Fortran.
Specifically, it's F77 -> F90 -> F95 -> F2K. There have been enough attempts to replace Fortran, and the only result so far is that it's kept computer scientists entertained. All of these ideas are driven by one common thread; formally trained computer scientists can't stand Fortran 77's control structures, non-dynamic memory, etc, and demand that it must be replaced for religious reasons. F90/F95 have already fixed those problems, but it's still called Fortran, and so it simply *MUST* be replaced.
Let's see, we had PL/I (a merger of Fortran, COBOL, and Algol), RATFOR, Ada, Matlab, C++, and the late, and rather lamented, Sather. None of them has the performance of Fortran, the ease of programming, the extensive and validated libraries, complex numbers as a fundamental data type, or the solidity of compilers.
It's the cockroach of computer languages; you can keep spraying, and it will keep sneakout out at night.
the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken