alm@a.lanl.gov (Alex Marusak) (10/21/88)
>From brainerd@unmvax.unm.edu Mon Oct 17 22:01:18 1988 > >Another point I forgot to mention previously (the significance of which >you can puzzle over for yourself) in response to someone who noted that >the Europeans seem to represent the consumer viewpoint more than X3J3: > >The document favored by ISO/WG5 was put into its final form by five >people on X3J3 who all represent users; the hardest opposition is >coming from some of the vendors. Representing users is a tricky business. In spite of our best efforts, the user community disapproved of Fortran 8x by about 2 to 1 in the public review. To 'represent users' and simultaneously continue to advocate the full Fortran 8x puts one, I think, in the awkward position of repudiating the publicly stated majority views of the very group one is trying to represent... Alex Marusak, X3J3 member from Los Alamos National Laboratory.
mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu (10/21/88)
>Representing users is a tricky business. In spite of our best >efforts, the user community disapproved of Fortran 8x by about >2 to 1 in the public review. What do you mean by "in spite of our best efforts"? I take it "our" refers to "users" on the committee. But does "best efforts" mean "best efforts" to represent real users on the committee - trying to get the draft they want - or does it mean trying to convince real users that what the committee created is what the users "really want" I would like to point out that the representative of the University of Illinois on the committee most certainly does not represent the views of the computing community of the U of I Chemistry department, wherein I reside. I am not aware of any systematic survey he made of Fortran users here before "representing " us on the committee ( actually he may not really claim to represent us, so this can't be taken as a complaint). He is a nice guy and quite happy to listen to our views, but without some systematic effort (like a survey) can't claim to be a representative. (I would also like to thank someone, presumably him, for making a public announcement in a well-distributed campus forum that X3J3 would be undertaking a revision of Fortran BEFORE it became too late to give any input. I had several conversations with him long before the draft became final). Doug McDonald
bill@hcx2.SSD.HARRIS.COM (10/28/88)
"Best effort", I think, means that each member of X3J3 did their best to represent what they thought the "majority" of users want in FORTRAN. But, the exchanges posted recently in this news group make it pretty clear (to me, at least) that there is no "majority" position among users. We have users strongly advocating everything, or almost everything, in the current draft. We have other users equally strongly protesting. We have the public review in which, although a clear majority disapproved of the draft, many of the controversial features received at least some support. FORTRAN has become a "jack of all trades" to many people. Many scientists, engineers, physicists, etc. want a language that is concise, easy to use, relatively simple, and that gives them access to all the power of the machine. Other users, including in some cases colleagues of those same scientists and engineers and physicists, want a "safe", powerful language, a language well-suited to software engineering. Isn't it time we admitted that one language cannot do all? Yes, I understand all the arguments for using the same language. I suppose that carpenters would prefer that one tool could hammer nails, saw boards, measure distances, and smooth wood; but instead they carry hammers, saws, rulers, and planes. Perhaps also the arguments made in support of using one language have as their basis an invalid assumption: that it is a good idea to try and take a research project directly to a production-quality product without redesign. All attempts I have seen to do that with hardware have been dismal failures; there is no reason to believe software is immune from the causes of those failures. If you try to make FORTRAN be all things to all people, the effort will be a failure. However, I also predict that no one will listen to this prophecy, and we (X3J3) will continue to try to do just that. The real shame is that X3J3 will be blamed for the failure, when we are merely trying to do what users are asking of us. Each member, of course, has a different opinion of what the requests are, but each is quite honest in believing his/her opinion is correct. The bare fact is, however, that we are being asked to perform an impossible task, and we will fail.