Indexing from zero - who ever heard of zero of a thing. Damn quiche
eaters.
I've heard it explained this way: Index zero requires zero offset from
the start of the array's memory address, so the index presents how many
offsets the item is away from the start of the array.
Makes more sense when you think of it that way. But again, it makes more
sense in lower languages like C than it does in "higher" languages like
Fortran and Python where memory addressing details aren't exposed to the
programmer.
Prentice
On 10/20/20 4:00 AM, John Hearns wrote:
> Most compilers had extensions from the IV/66 (or 77) – quoted
strings, for instance, instead of Hollerith constants, and free form
input. Some allowed array index origins other than 1
I can now date exactly when the rot set in.
Hollerith constants are good enough for anyone. It's a gosh darned
computer, not your nearest and dearest whispering in your ear. It
still thinks it is talking to a thundering line printer and getting
its input from a real Teletype.
Indexing from zero - who ever heard of zero of a thing. Damn quiche
eaters.
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 22:27, Lux, Jim (US 7140) via Beowulf
<beowulf@beowulf.org <mailto:beowulf@beowulf.org>> wrote:
Yes, the evil-ution of languages proceeded at a much more stately
pace in “arpanet” days.
Typically, you’d have a bunch of vendor specific versions, and
since PCs per-se didn’t exist, you bought the compiler for the
machine you had. And then, maybe you paid attention to the notes
in the back of the manual about deviations from the Fortran IV,
66, or 77. Most compilers had extensions from the IV/66 (or 77) –
quoted strings, for instance, instead of Hollerith constants, and
free form input. Some allowed array index origins other than 1
(handy for FFTs where you wanted to go from -N/2 to N/2). Most
also had some provision for direct access to files, as opposed to
sequential, but it was very, very OS dependent.
Probably by the 80s and early 90s, with widespread use of personal
computers, and the POSIX standard, you started to see more
“machine independent, standards compliant” Fortran. And, you saw
the idea of buying your compiler from someone different than the
computer maker, i.e. companies like Absoft and Portland Group (now
part of nvidia), partly because the microcomputer manufacturers
had no interest in developing compilers for cheap processors, and
sometimes to accommodate a specialized need. Hence products like
Fortran for 8080 under CP/M from Digital Research. ( I ran
Cromemco Fortran IV in 48k of RAM on my mighty Cromemco Z80 at
4MHz, which I believe was a variant of Fortran-80 from DR)
But even then, it was a pretty slow evolution – the Fortran
compilers I was running in the 80s on microcomputers under MS-DOS
wasn’t materially different from the Fortran I was running in 1978
on a Z80, which wasn’t significantly different from the Fortran I
ran on mainframes (IBM 360, CDC 6xxx, etc.) and minis (IBM 1130,
PDP-11 in the 60s and 70s. What would change is things like the
libraries available to do “non-standard” stuff (like random disk
access).
*From: *Beowulf <beowulf-boun...@beowulf.org
<mailto:beowulf-boun...@beowulf.org>> on behalf of
"beowulf@beowulf.org <mailto:beowulf@beowulf.org>"
<beowulf@beowulf.org <mailto:beowulf@beowulf.org>>
*Reply-To: *Prentice Bisbal <pbis...@pppl.gov
<mailto:pbis...@pppl.gov>>
*Date: *Monday, October 19, 2020 at 12:21 PM
*To: *"Renfro, Michael" <ren...@tntech.edu
<mailto:ren...@tntech.edu>>, "beowulf@beowulf.org
<mailto:beowulf@beowulf.org>" <beowulf@beowulf.org
<mailto:beowulf@beowulf.org>>
*Subject: *Re: [Beowulf] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re:
Re: Spark, Julia, OpenMPI etc. - all in one place
That's exactly what I suspected. I guess 13 years is like an
eternity in the modern "Speed of the Internet" world we live in,
but may not have been such a slow evolution time of the
pre-Internet days.
Prentice
On 10/19/20 2:53 PM, Renfro, Michael wrote:
Minor point of pedagogy from my place in the "learned FORTRAN
77 in 1990" crowd: your instructor's options would have been:
* standard FORTRAN 77
* vendor-specific dialect of FORTRAN (VAX or otherwise)
* maybe a pre-release of FORTRAN 90? Wasn't released and
standardized until 1991-92.
Never mind the availability of texts for same.
*From: *Beowulf <beowulf-boun...@beowulf.org>
<mailto:beowulf-boun...@beowulf.org>
*Date: *Monday, October 19, 2020 at 12:06 PM
*To: *beowulf@beowulf.org <mailto:beowulf@beowulf.org>
<beowulf@beowulf.org> <mailto:beowulf@beowulf.org>
*Subject: *Re: [Beowulf] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: [EXTERNAL]
Re: Re: Spark, Julia, OpenMPI etc. - all in one place
On 10/19/20 10:28 AM, Douglas Eadline wrote:
> --snip--
>
>> Unfortunately the presumption seems to be that the old is
deficient
>> because it is old, and "my generation†didn't invent it
(which is
>> clearly perverse; I see no rush to replace English, French,
… which are
>> all older than any of our programming languages, and which
adapt, as do
>> our programming languages).
>>
> I think this has a lot to do with the Fortran situation. In
these "modern"
> times, software seems to have gone from "releases" to a "sliding
> constant release" cycle and anything not released in the
past few
> months is "old."
>
> How many people here will wait a 2-6 months before installing
> a "new version" of some package in production to make sure there
> are no major issues. And of course keep older version options
> with software modules. Perhaps because I've been at this a
while,
> I have a let it "mellow a bit" approach to shinny new software.
>
> I find it odd that Fortran gets placed in the "old software box"
> because it works while new languages with their constant feature
> churn and versions break dependency trees all over the place,
> and somehow that is good thing. Now get off my lawn.
>
> --
> Doug
>
Now we're starting to veer of course a little here, but what
the hell...
I think that one of the problems with Fortran is a complete
misunderstanding of it's purpose. People are always shocked
when I tell
them the scientists I support are "still" using Fortran. Many
people
think that C and C++ replaced Fortran, but that is not true. C was
designed to do low-level programming for tasks like writing
operating
systems, and C++ is just an extension of the C language to support
Object-Oriented Programming. Both C and C++ are lower-level
and more
general purpose than Fortran.
Fortran is a domain-specific language, meaning it was meant for a
special purpose, which in this case is doing mathematical
operations,
and it's very good for those sorts of things. It's trivial to
create
multidimensional arrays in Fortran, which is useful for many math
operations, but C doesn't even support anything beyond 1D
arrays. Sure
you can mimic multidimensional arrays by keeping track of
stride length,
etc., but that's a lot of work, and I'm betting that's work a
lot of
scientists would rather not do. That's just one example of
Fortran being
friendlier for science. I'm sure there are other examples, but
I'm not a
programmer, and definitely NOT a Fortran programmer.
I think the main reason most people look at Fortran as an old and
outdated language is because it stuck to the "punch card"
formatting
long after punch cards and punch card readers disappeared, but
I'm not
sure who to blame for that. Do I blame my freshman
"Programming for
Engineers" instructor who taught me Fortran 77 in 1991, or do
I blame
whoever maintains the Fortran standard for not updating it
before then?
(I honestly don't know what the latest version of Fortran was
in the
fall of 1991).
Prentice
_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org
<mailto:Beowulf@beowulf.org> sponsored by Penguin Computing
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbeowulf.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fbeowulf&data=04%7C01%7CRenfro%40tntech.edu%7C8486662b21394e7039e408d8745157c5%7C66fecaf83dc04d2cb8b8eff0ddea46f0%7C1%7C0%7C637387240011631429%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=lpfkkIZiPQ734YkMGHzI3M27w5RmZhkJ8dDbAD765dQ%3D&reserved=0
<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https:/nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Fbeowulf.org*2Fcgi-bin*2Fmailman*2Flistinfo*2Fbeowulf&data=04*7C01*7CRenfro*40tntech.edu*7C8486662b21394e7039e408d8745157c5*7C66fecaf83dc04d2cb8b8eff0ddea46f0*7C1*7C0*7C637387240011631429*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C1000&sdata=lpfkkIZiPQ734YkMGHzI3M27w5RmZhkJ8dDbAD765dQ*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!dbjGYkPB4I_e3Mpwg3ymxEHvrBoG1cZSjqXNtiKg304pOV-Gy0YzVZwDH06Ry2bLTDuCUDU$>
--
Prentice Bisbal
Lead Software Engineer
Research Computing
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
http://www.pppl.gov
<https://urldefense.us/v3/__http:/www.pppl.gov__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!dbjGYkPB4I_e3Mpwg3ymxEHvrBoG1cZSjqXNtiKg304pOV-Gy0YzVZwDH06Ry2bL3ZCPgrk$>
_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org
<mailto:Beowulf@beowulf.org> sponsored by Penguin Computing
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
https://beowulf.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
--
Prentice Bisbal
Lead Software Engineer
Research Computing
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
http://www.pppl.gov
_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org sponsored by Penguin Computing
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
https://beowulf.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
