Did you know its not possible to make a typo type syntax error in fortran 77 that will compile?
Did it many, many times in F77.
SLOOOOW. And unparallelizable. and it kills multi-processing dead. and loss of control over memory management. loss of memory mapped sub arrays, strides etc.... Sure you can do strides in c++ but now they are function calls not direct-to-memory.
Real Scientist != Computer Scientist. What C++ compiler are you using? Even VC++ makes those calls in-line and optimized the heck out of them so they become direct memory access. Also, if you needed that kind of control over an array, you can create an encapsulating class with in-line methods to achieve the same effect. I've looked at the assembly GCC generates for this kind of thing. It's indistinguishable from the equivalent C code.
Your argument rests on gross assumptions of how C++ compilers really work.
As for unparallelizable, there is a project to create a C++ for parallel computing.
In fortran you can often pull contionals outside of loops using the WHERE syntax. Its much better to have a good syntax in the language than make up for it with a bunch of function calls and object instantiation. e.g. both languages can write
Relying on changing the language syntax instead of using libraries is called the PL/1 trap in computing science cicles.
A = B*C where A,B and C are matricies but C has to do it with objects and overloads. fortran does not. which do you think is going to be faster.
It doesn't matter what I think. I check what the compiler actually generates, and the matrix library I wrote in C++ made tight use of memory and in-line calls. Matrix addition was done in situ and looked exactly like the code generated for the equivalent in-line C code. Unfortunately, my workplace only has F77 compilers (commercial ones), so I can't check the matrix operations in F95 and higher, but I'll take your word for it that it is effecient and doesn't use a function call.
So fortran steals a good thing from C and you complain?
I wasn't complaining that FORTRAN stole it, I was responding to the original post that made the implicit slam that C did not do that.
whoopee. I can say it in reverse: take the STL and put a fortran wrapper on it. now fortran has the STL
No, you can't. The STL is templated and largely in-lined code. As well, the STL derives its strength from creating ad-hoc code for the specific data type. You can write a wrapper for that for FORTRAN.
myobject->hash_get(key)
in fortran you would say:
hash_get(myObjectStructure, key)
is there any important difference?
Polymorphism.
You still dont get it. Its the underlying model that makes fortran efficient.
I do get it, you don't. I'm saying modern compilers have caught up. From the tone of your post, it sounds like you have access to a souped-up F95 compiler with extensions out the wazzoo, but only access to a cruddy first-generation C++ compiler that probably still uses cfront. Get a real C++ compiler and check the generated assembly.
its the reduced noumber of syntax errors from a less sloppy language deifintion that make it clean and readable and easy to debug. But if you must have examples of speciic cmmands then...consider the FORALL which is a for-loop that goes over its range in any order thus allowing implict multithreading. Consider the WHERE clause which allows conditonals to be factored out of tight loops. Consider that it uses references not pointer arithmatic (like java).
All stuff introduced in F95. Most code and people are still at the F90 level.
The fortran will stil have advantages in syntax, clean looking code and quickly debuggable source.
1) clean, neat code that is easy to read by non-programmers.
*snort* I'll believe that when I see it.
2) Array bounds checking by the compiler - try that with C++. Array bounds checking saves me huge amounts of time in development.
I use the STL and not think about bounds ever again.
3) Compiler checking of function calls, via encapsulation of functions in modules.
Unless you're badly describing another feature, that was one of the first features of C++ and ANSI C.
4) Easy use of BLAS and LAPACK routines for real computational work.
Two words: C wrapper.
5) The actual function definition used for the function prototype - I don't have to maintain a separate prototype for my functions to get the advantages of prototyping!
Some argue that having a separate prototype prevents the implementor from arbitrarily changing the interface without warning their other team member.
Fortran isn't perfect (yet). It still lacks the ability to make a function part of a data structure (ie, classes). It current i/o abilities still suck. It's ability to handle characters and character strings is terrible. But it does have advantages other than producing fast code, and it isn't your father's fortran77.
You just said the two most important capabilities of any programming environment in most problem domains (I/O and character handling) suck, so what advantages does FORTRAN have have? Native complex number support? The rest of FORTRAN's "advantages" have long since been added to every other programming language on the planet.
And as for native complex number support, I might point out with C++, you can create identical functionality with a class and operator overloading.
On the other hand, I believe such diversity will only be strengthened by allowing the people with the most resources free rein to develop channels/media as they see fit. You get duplication of effort now (CNN, FOX, MSNBC), where later we could perhaps have two or three media giants offering a broader spectrum (CNN Politics, CNN Music, CNN Sports).
So in a way I wonder if we should be upset about this.
You know, I've always wanted to meet one of those people who believe Freedom is Slavery and Ignorance is Srength...
You'd think so (used Ann Coulter's definition of the word). To be fair, the SCADA systems are not officially considered part of the safety or reliability system. If they were, they'd have to run a grown up operating system that is certified for use in power generation and distribution. Wasn't this QNX's niche?
Maybe Microsoft will suddenly not get a contract with the power generators anymore, but that's as far as we'll ever hear of it.
Obligatory response: Woo-hoo! Linux all the way baby!
BTW, the EULA specifically prohibits NT and up from being used in "critical" situations where life and environmental damage are on the line. So it would be the utilities' fault, not Microsoft's.
* Where did all the UN Food for Oil money disppear to?
Into Haliburton's coffers. The U.S. has taken over the program, and so far, they've exhausted the funds, but no one can tell what it was actually spent on.
* How much business did France and Germany do with Iraq in violation of UN resolutions?
About the same as American companies, including Haliburton which also did business illegally with Iran.
* How the "sactions are killing millions of Iraqi babies" stories were bogus.
Turns out, few. The "millions" is a massive exageration, but the sanctions did kill at least 100,000 Iraqis according to most news reports.
* How much of the Arab and some European press were getting paid by Saddam.... and so on. All legitimate stories that have also been underreported, yet I don't see that site screaming censorship.
That story was "under-reported" because most of it got quickly debunked early on. Including the CSM apologizing for using forged documents to smear some of these people.
If you want to talk under-reported stories of Iraq, how about...
The number of human shields who turned out to be CIA agents?
The number of Hussein regime figures who accepted American bribes and promises of political refuge if they surrendered peacefully?
The real reason Turkey did not let American troops into northern Iraq? The general media kept reporting it as "opposition to the war". *snicker*
The Kurds policy of "ethnic cleansing" where they are forcing Arab families out of their homes at gunpoint.
The more you learn about this war, the more you realise it has little to do with justice for the Iraqi people or freeing them from tyrrany.
Oh, and the biggest under-reported story of all:
The big conservative groups vehemently opposed the invasion of Iraq including Pat Buchanan, the Libertines and at least half a dozen other conservative organizations and institutions.
Has there been any further advance on IP broadcasting and service discovery protocols? It would be nice to just send out a polite broadcast asking if there's a timeserver nearby willing to talk to your app instead of having to hardcode names or IP addresses.
Besides, I've been hearing about the death of Moore's Law for the last ten years.
It's a popular filler topic for industry journalists who have nothing better to report about. They'll just point out that the latest processor from AMD/Intel/etc is "reaching the limits of current technology" and then progress ipso facto to "Moore's Law could be dead in a few years".
Stop complaining and put you money where your mouth is. I am tired of this SCO crap. When are you people going to stop whining and do something about it. If you have contributed to the Linux kernel, sue SCO for damaging your product...
Spoken like a true litigation newbie! Man, you should see the hastle just to take someone to small claims court. It's a 1000x worse and 1000x more expensive to take it to full litigation.
But why didn't Wil Wheaton run? I mean, come on, Gary Coleman and Galagher are running!
Wil Wheaton would reverse the polarity of the tacheyon stream and run it through a matter phase inverter, and voila! No more budget deficit and power enough to light California for 20 years.
Makes me want to go write some Lisp, which is perhaps the antithesis of Perl. Lisp has the maximum possibile flexibility through having the minimum possible syntax. Perl originally had little flexibility, now they are trying to add more by adding more syntax. The problem is, if they want to get anywhere near Lisp-level flexibility with this method they'll need to move to Unicode for the syntax!
On a serious note, you could always write Lisp like programs in Perl and thus get the flexibility of Lisp (including having Perl build functions which are then called by the code). I've done it.
It's just that Larry is using syntax to provide ever more expressibility and pre-defined cases. Whether or not this is a good thing depends on your biases.
I always feel like my head is going to explode after reading an Apocalypse.
In the novel that the movie was based on, the Firefox was developed from a project to create a mind-controllable wheelchair. So how long before we get jet fighters we can control with our minds?
Then it can advance to jet fighters that transform and can only be controlled by mind-control and a giant mega-fortress with a really annoying J-Pop singer.
THEN, we can have giant Evangellion robot warriors that you synch with that has a 1 in 10 chance of killing you (or driving you insane) just in time for the Second Impact!!
Most airplanes in the US record less than 10% of the flight data they are supposed to, and they want to waste their time with this? When your airplane crashes, the black box usually doesn't have near enough information to figure out what killed you and what they can do to prevent it. That's why it can take anywhere from months to years to come up with a recommendation. In the meantime, for lack of black box data, you get to fly with increased risk. What argument do the airlines use to get away with it? Too much weight.
In Europe, every carier records hundreds of parameters of the flight. After even a minor problem on the flight, the data tape is pulled and analyzed by maintenance. The result is they don't have stupid maintenance accidents like Alaska Airlines did. Stuck rudder? It's analyzed and fixed within weeks, not left unchecked for months.
The only reason they are recording their passengers is to protect them from liability when they handcuff an unruly passenger. It has little to do with increasing your safety.
It will be interesting to see how this page plays out, to see if it is compromised by hundreds or thousands of people with an agenda. It's hard to pick up on subtle slanting of information until it's too late.
That's why the ACLU is opposed to TIA and the infamous TIPS program.
I use two, emusic and iTunes (which appearantly is going to be available for Windows this year).
And when did these services go on-line? You have heard the president of Sony music saying the success of iTunes woke the industry up, making them realise they could make money this way?
The problem has been, and always has been, the record labels refusing to give the customer what they wanted: diversity, choice and fair pricing. If you want to hear the songs of a new artist not on the Top 40 or Clear Channel's Can-Play list, or just listen to the back catalog of a New Wave 80s group, you basically had no option other than piracy and P2P. Internet Radio stations were few and far between, and their diversity was limited (for reasons we all know and love). The demand was there, but the RIAA just didn't want to give their customers what they wanted.
That, my good sir, is why P2P exists. It stepped up to fill a void by music buyers to try and discover before they buy. The idea that "sharing" people won't buy has been debunked so many times, it's not even worth my time to look up the links for you. You are defend ing the RIAA's stupidity and avarice. Their arguments don't hold water anymore, and it's time to find a new whine other than "theives and freeloaders!"
Slashdot Mirror
Did it many, many times in F77.
Real Scientist != Computer Scientist. What C++ compiler are you using? Even VC++ makes those calls in-line and optimized the heck out of them so they become direct memory access. Also, if you needed that kind of control over an array, you can create an encapsulating class with in-line methods to achieve the same effect. I've looked at the assembly GCC generates for this kind of thing. It's indistinguishable from the equivalent C code.
Your argument rests on gross assumptions of how C++ compilers really work.
As for unparallelizable, there is a project to create a C++ for parallel computing.
Relying on changing the language syntax instead of using libraries is called the PL/1 trap in computing science cicles.
It doesn't matter what I think. I check what the compiler actually generates, and the matrix library I wrote in C++ made tight use of memory and in-line calls. Matrix addition was done in situ and looked exactly like the code generated for the equivalent in-line C code. Unfortunately, my workplace only has F77 compilers (commercial ones), so I can't check the matrix operations in F95 and higher, but I'll take your word for it that it is effecient and doesn't use a function call.
I wasn't complaining that FORTRAN stole it, I was responding to the original post that made the implicit slam that C did not do that.
No, you can't. The STL is templated and largely in-lined code. As well, the STL derives its strength from creating ad-hoc code for the specific data type. You can write a wrapper for that for FORTRAN.
Polymorphism.
I do get it, you don't. I'm saying modern compilers have caught up. From the tone of your post, it sounds like you have access to a souped-up F95 compiler with extensions out the wazzoo, but only access to a cruddy first-generation C++ compiler that probably still uses cfront. Get a real C++ compiler and check the generated assembly.
All stuff introduced in F95. Most code and people are still at the F90 level.
Care to post an example?
Oh, great! "Star Wars Babies". Don't give the Great Whore of the Galaxy anymore ideas, OK?
I'm just glad I wasn't drinking my usual coffee this morning, or I'd be scrounging for a new keyboard. That was muy funny.
1) clean, neat code that is easy to read by non-programmers.
*snort* I'll believe that when I see it.
2) Array bounds checking by the compiler - try that with C++. Array bounds checking saves me huge amounts of time in development.
I use the STL and not think about bounds ever again.
3) Compiler checking of function calls, via encapsulation of functions in modules.
Unless you're badly describing another feature, that was one of the first features of C++ and ANSI C.
4) Easy use of BLAS and LAPACK routines for real computational work.
Two words: C wrapper.
5) The actual function definition used for the function prototype - I don't have to maintain a separate prototype for my functions to get the advantages of prototyping!
Some argue that having a separate prototype prevents the implementor from arbitrarily changing the interface without warning their other team member.
Fortran isn't perfect (yet). It still lacks the ability to make a function part of a data
structure (ie, classes). It current i/o abilities still suck. It's ability to handle characters and
character strings is terrible. But it does have advantages other than producing fast code, and it
isn't your father's fortran77.
You just said the two most important capabilities of any programming environment in most problem domains (I/O and character handling) suck, so what advantages does FORTRAN have have? Native complex number support? The rest of FORTRAN's "advantages" have long since been added to every other programming language on the planet.
And as for native complex number support, I might point out with C++, you can create identical functionality with a class and operator overloading.
Hey! I resemble that comment...
That's just not fair! I'm positive OLED screens and MRAM will actually see the light of day. Comparing it to the DNF is just plain mean.
You know, I've always wanted to meet one of those people who believe Freedom is Slavery and Ignorance is Srength...
Now my wish has come true.
Since when did Colarado become a foreign country?
You'd think so (used Ann Coulter's definition of the word). To be fair, the SCADA systems are not officially considered part of the safety or reliability system. If they were, they'd have to run a grown up operating system that is certified for use in power generation and distribution. Wasn't this QNX's niche?
Obligatory response: Woo-hoo! Linux all the way baby!
BTW, the EULA specifically prohibits NT and up from being used in "critical" situations where life and environmental damage are on the line. So it would be the utilities' fault, not Microsoft's.
Into Haliburton's coffers. The U.S. has taken over the program, and so far, they've exhausted the funds, but no one can tell what it was actually spent on.
* How much business did France and Germany do with Iraq in violation of UN resolutions?
About the same as American companies, including Haliburton which also did business illegally with Iran.
* How the "sactions are killing millions of Iraqi babies" stories were bogus.
Turns out, few. The "millions" is a massive exageration, but the sanctions did kill at least 100,000 Iraqis according to most news reports.
* How much of the Arab and some European press were getting paid by Saddam.
That story was "under-reported" because most of it got quickly debunked early on. Including the CSM apologizing for using forged documents to smear some of these people.
If you want to talk under-reported stories of Iraq, how about...
The more you learn about this war, the more you realise it has little to do with justice for the Iraqi people or freeing them from tyrrany.
Oh, and the biggest under-reported story of all:
The big conservative groups vehemently opposed the invasion of Iraq including Pat Buchanan, the Libertines and at least half a dozen other conservative organizations and institutions.
How hard is it to implement? Does it cost a lot?
Has there been any further advance on IP broadcasting and service discovery protocols? It would be nice to just send out a polite broadcast asking if there's a timeserver nearby willing to talk to your app instead of having to hardcode names or IP addresses.
It's a popular filler topic for industry journalists who have nothing better to report about. They'll just point out that the latest processor from AMD/Intel/etc is "reaching the limits of current technology" and then progress ipso facto to "Moore's Law could be dead in a few years".
[Note: this mapping only tested on Vim, the one true VI clone]
But why didn't Wil Wheaton run? I mean, come on, Gary Coleman and Galagher are running!
Wil Wheaton would reverse the polarity of the tacheyon stream and run it through a matter phase inverter, and voila! No more budget deficit and power enough to light California for 20 years.
See? My Modified Godwin's law is right!
On a serious note, you could always write Lisp like programs in Perl and thus get the flexibility of Lisp (including having Perl build functions which are then called by the code). I've done it.
It's just that Larry is using syntax to provide ever more expressibility and pre-defined cases. Whether or not this is a good thing depends on your biases.
I always feel like my head is going to explode after reading an Apocalypse.
"Be careful with that [matter inversion gizmo]... we could end up undoing unthings untogether!
-- Doctor Who, John Pertwee
In the novel that the movie was based on, the Firefox was developed from a project to create a mind-controllable wheelchair. So how long before we get jet fighters we can control with our minds?
:-}
Then it can advance to jet fighters that transform and can only be controlled by mind-control and a giant mega-fortress with a really annoying J-Pop singer.
THEN, we can have giant Evangellion robot warriors that you synch with that has a 1 in 10 chance of killing you (or driving you insane) just in time for the Second Impact!!
*Phew*
I think I'll go lie down now...
Most airplanes in the US record less than 10% of the flight data they are supposed to, and they want to waste their time with this? When your airplane crashes, the black box usually doesn't have near enough information to figure out what killed you and what they can do to prevent it. That's why it can take anywhere from months to years to come up with a recommendation. In the meantime, for lack of black box data, you get to fly with increased risk. What argument do the airlines use to get away with it? Too much weight.
In Europe, every carier records hundreds of parameters of the flight. After even a minor problem on the flight, the data tape is pulled and analyzed by maintenance. The result is they don't have stupid maintenance accidents like Alaska Airlines did. Stuck rudder? It's analyzed and fixed within weeks, not left unchecked for months.
The only reason they are recording their passengers is to protect them from liability when they handcuff an unruly passenger. It has little to do with increasing your safety.
That's a futon, you insensitive clod!
That's why the ACLU is opposed to TIA and the infamous TIPS program.
Just say what you mean: it's about the Karma.
And when did these services go on-line? You have heard the president of Sony music saying the success of iTunes woke the industry up, making them realise they could make money this way?
The problem has been, and always has been, the record labels refusing to give the customer what they wanted: diversity, choice and fair pricing. If you want to hear the songs of a new artist not on the Top 40 or Clear Channel's Can-Play list, or just listen to the back catalog of a New Wave 80s group, you basically had no option other than piracy and P2P. Internet Radio stations were few and far between, and their diversity was limited (for reasons we all know and love). The demand was there, but the RIAA just didn't want to give their customers what they wanted.
That, my good sir, is why P2P exists. It stepped up to fill a void by music buyers to try and discover before they buy. The idea that "sharing" people won't buy has been debunked so many times, it's not even worth my time to look up the links for you. You are defend ing the RIAA's stupidity and avarice. Their arguments don't hold water anymore, and it's time to find a new whine other than "theives and freeloaders!"