blickstein@orphan.DEC (Dave Blickstein) (06/19/84)
I think you've forgotten APL. True APL does not use "standard names" for
mathmatical functions. But APL notation is always closer to standard math
notation ( we all know that the following FORTRAN statement is mathmatically
impossible: A = A + 1). Most people are not aware that APL started out as
a mathmatical notation and was implemented on a computer somewhat later.
It's true that FORTRAN gives access to things like IMSL whereas most (not
all) APL implementations do not. However, most scientific applications
do not require those functions which APL is missing.
I believe most non-computer trained scientists would find APL a lot more
"familiar" and easier to learn and use than FORTRAN. I think that for
perhaps even a majority of cases, APL appropriate choice over FORTRAN for
scientific programming.
Dave Blickstein
Quotes:
"Why do people use FORTRAN: People will use tomorrow what they used today
because that's what they used yesterday."
"APL is no less readable than Japaneese. It's just different from than the
mass of procedural languages and thus unfamiliar to the average programmer."
(UUCP) {decvax, ucbvax, allegra}!decwrl!rhea!orphan!blickstein
(ARPA) decwrl!rhea!orphan!blickstein@Berkeley
decwrl!rhea!orphan!blickstein@SU-Shasta
res@ihuxn.UUCP (Rich Strebendt) (06/22/84)
I have used both FORTRAN and APL (among many other languages) and I came to the conclusion that APL is the world's only write-only language! The standard technique for fixing a bug in an APL program is to rewrite the whole program ... FINDING the bug in an APL program is much more difficult than in any other language I have used. By the way, has anyone ever found a way to write structured APL? Rich Strebendt ...!ihnp4!ihuxn!res