HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: john@spectre.unm.edu (John Prentice)
Subject: Re: scientists as programmers (was: Small Language Wanted)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 04:54:07 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Math & Stat, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <l9lrciINNb7b@almaak.usc.edu> ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes:
>
>how could a good programmer possibly use fortran?  It has to be the
>case of a person who wants to get a job done and doesn't take interest
>in the means.
>

One is tempted to suggest that many CS types are merely interested
in the means and not in actually getting the job done.  But to really
address your question, the answer is obvious to anyone who has much
experience in serious scientific computing.  Fortran is still the
fastest language out there for the vast majority of problems.  If
that changes in the future, say with functional languages, then you
will see scientists switching to those languages.  It is precisely
the fact that scientists are interested in doing science, not in
programming purity, that drives their choice of language.  In that
sense, they are way ahead of the types who will endlessly debate
whether one language is better than another.  

As to whether scientists make good programmers, I have seen lots of
scientists who are bad programmers and a few who are very, very good. 
I would say that on average, scientists don't pay enough attention
to software engineering issues and are slow to learn and adopt modern
programming techniques or languages.  However, turn it around.  How
many great professional programmers are good scientists?  And if the 
answer is very few (which it is), then you have to ask the question
of whether the CS community is even vaguely aware of what scientists
do with computers or what they really need in terms of languages and
software tools.  If they were, then there would not be so many people
aghast at the use of Fortran in the scientific community.  

My final comment is my stock one about Fortran.  Continuing to
debate the pros or cons of Fortran 77 is a cheap shot, not worthy
of serious discussion.  Fortran 77 is out of date, everyone agrees
with that.  Fortran 90 is a modern language, with certainly as much
claim to that title as languages like C.  You can argue the merits
of some of what is in Fortran 90, and I would welcome such a
discussion.  But at least we would then be debating where the
scientific programming community is today, not where it was 20
years ago.

John
-- 
John K. Prentice                      
Quetzal Computational Associates    
3200 Carlisle N.E., Albuquerque, NM   87110-1664; 505-889-4543
john@spectre.unm.edu -or- jkprent@cs.sandia.gov -or- john@aquarius.unm.edu
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.misc,comp.arch,sci.math
From: zkdc05@trc.amoco.com (Kelly D. Crawford)
Subject: Re: Scientists as Programmers (was Re: Small Language Wanted)
Originator: zkdc05@church
Organization: Amoco Production Company, Tulsa Research
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:39:30 GMT


In article <1992Aug31.135937.5801@dcc.uchile.cl>, pchris@dcc.uchile.cl (Chris Perleberg) writes:
> 
> They did hire one programmer and basically she couldn't do much useful 
> programming in the nuclear codes (anyway, a BS in CS is going to tell a
> Doctor in Physics how to structure his code? ;-).  She winded up making
> pretty shell scripts and moving data off and on tapes......
> 

Wait a minute!  Why are you comparing someone with a BS to someone with a PhD,
and then drawing definitive conclusions about the way things are???

I am currently finishing my PhD in computer science, I am math literate, and I can
follow most any science you throw at me.  Am I as good in science X as a PhD in
science X?  Of course not!  But the complement of that statement is true as well...

I communicate with (and do computer science for) PhD's in geophysics on a regular
basis where I work.  This works quite well from both my standpoint and theirs (by
their own admission, and by some fantastic results that we have achieve by working
together).

Yes, they could get along just fine without me.  However, they can get along better
with me, and have been happy to admit so.  If we are going to make these general
assumptions about the way things are, let's at least compare apples with apples
and oranges with oranges.  Perhaps some of you have had contrary experiences,
but here is one experience that has worked great!

Kelly
-- 
Kelly D. Crawford             | Amoco Production Research | These are my own
kcrawford@trc.amoco.com       | 4502 East 41st Street     | opinions, not
phone: (918) 660-4043         | Tulsa, OK  74102          | Amoco's...
          >>> *** This line intentionally left blank *** <<<
Xref: sparky comp.edu:1485 comp.lang.fortran:3378 sci.math:10867
From: jsvrc@rc.rit.edu (Doctor FORTRAN)
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.fortran,sci.general,sci.math
Subject: Re: Scientists as Programmers (was Re: Small Language Wanted)
Date: 1 Sep 92 00:51:32 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: RIT Research Corp
Originator: jsvrc@rcmain.rc.rit.edu

In article <1992Aug27.154823.583@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes:

>     It's not bigotry, it's a sociological generalization . . . .

Okay, let's hear your definition of bigotry. :-)
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.misc,comp.arch,sci.math
From: mcvey@mpr.ca (Iain McVey)
Subject: Re: Scientists as Programmers (was Re: Small Language Wanted)
Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd., Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 00:08:03 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.211256.20455@a.cs.okstate.edu> hip@a.cs.okstate.edu (HUFFMAN BRADLEY SP) writes:
>Ha!
>
>You just reminded me of one of my favorite grips with "computer science", 
>every time I mention that "computer science" professors should try to 
>teach more real world problems I'm hit with the go old "We teach science,
>not coding".  Even had a professor ask me why I program in COBOL at my
>job, dumb founded at such a silly question I said "I like to eat".

My favorite question is 'what do we need to know for the exam'.

What my computing science professors invariably told us was not:
1) what you need to know for work after university or 2) what you need to
actually pass the exam.  What we were usually told we soon recognized to
be what you need to know for later grad courses in the subject.

This is of course tongue in cheek, but the premise holds.  All too often
when 'computing science types' are hired, they are meant to be all
around fix-it people.  Handymen or women.  As computing science gets
more and more specialized, there are fewer 'general practitioners'.  If
you need someone to vectorize your algorithm, or ensure that your
matrix ops are pivoting correctly, you need to hire someone who knows
how to do that.  Do not expect that person to know how to install
Windows, however.

Personally, I believe that most university programs are becomming so
varied that the quality of a degree varies from graduate to graduate.
The old half joking / half serious arts student / science student debate
is in evidence in most disciplines.  One student will have a good
degree, have taken some challenging courses, where another will have
taken the easy way out.

Here in Canada, there is apparently a shortage of computer programmers.
If this is the case, then there are sure to be a greater number of inept
programmers entering the work force soon, as the lure of empty jobs
becomes noticed, and those people rush through their degrees.

- Iain -
-- 
Iain McVey (mcvey@mpr.ca)    | Kodachrome, gives us those nice, bright colours,
Software Designer            | Gives the greens of summers,
MPR Teltech Ltd.             | Makes you think all the world's a sunny day.
8999 Nelson Way, Burnaby, BC | - Paul Simon
Xref: sparky comp.edu:1404 comp.lang.fortran:3272 comp.lang.misc:2799 comp.arch:9088 sci.math:10685
From: bevan@cs.man.ac.uk (Stephen J Bevan)
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.misc,comp.arch,sci.math
Subject: Re: Scientists as Programmers (was Re: Small Language Wanted)
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:54:47 GMT
	<1992Aug27.154823.583@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
	<BtpAIn.EE5@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Followup-To: comp.edu
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester
In-reply-to: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu's message of 28 Aug 92 15:47:10 GMT

In article <BtpAIn.EE5@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:

   Handling the syntax problem alone would make for great improvement,
   but I see nothing in this direction, and have asked for software to do
   this single job.

And many have asked you for a decent specification of what you want.
If you can't tell us what you want, there is not much chance of us
coding it is there?  So come on Herman, play the game, tell us
what you want so we can finally be rid of this old chestnut.

bevan

PS did you look at any of the languages I suggested the last time you
   brought this up?
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.misc,comp.arch,sci.math
From: meyer@dbsun.uucp (Don Meyer)
Subject: Re: Scientists as Programmers (was Re: Small Language Wanted)
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 11:29:44 GMT

In article <2!ln9fc@lynx.unm.edu> john@aquarius.unm.edu (John Prentice) writes:
 [ re: C++ and complex numbers ]
>Fortunately, you wouldn't need to because the designers were not brain
>dead enough to leave in out in the first place :-) .

'C' was intended as more of a systems language, in which case complex
numbers aren't usually needed.  C++ extends C without any particular
bias towards features for specific applications areas.  The philisophy
of extending the language via librarys (which can function quite as
nicely as built-in features) is a sound one.
I would hardly characterize this _considered choice_ as "brain-dead".

Don

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
meyer%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu        |||     I am at two with nature.
Opinions expressed are personal.         |||       -- Woody Allen
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.misc,comp.arch,sci.math
From: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Are programmers Computer Scientists?
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center and Reptile Farm
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:10:22 GMT

>>|> 
>>|> 	Just because someone programs (is required to program)
>>|> 	a. Is that person a Computer Scientist
>>|> 	b. Should that person be called a Computer Scientist.
>>|> 
>>|> 	-or- 
>>|> 	are all programmers Computer Scientists?
>>|> 	[are all programming courses CS courses?]


A computer scientist doesn't have to be a programmer, and a programmer doesn't
have to be a computer scientist.  But, it helps.  Good programmers invariably
know something of computer science, and good computer scientists invariably
know something of programming.

Some computer scientists are really mathematicians or psychologists in
disguise.  Many programmers just put blocks of prewritten code together and
fiddle with them until they work.  It's possible to be one without being the
other, but not advisable.
--scott
From: pattis@cs.washington.edu (Richard Pattis)
Newsgroups: comp.edu
Subject: Re: programming languages, education, unanswered questions, loose threads
Date: 28 Aug 92 22:38:00 GMT
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle

Of the 1,500 students per year taking Ada at UW, about 1200 are planning to
enroll in engineering departments other than ours. Of the remaining 300, 100
are taking the course for for distribution requirements. About 200 continue to
take our second course, and over half of those, about 125, get into the major.

Our introductory courses aren't really filters. Students need good grades in
2 out of 3 areas: math, science (physics/chemistry) and programming (I won't
even call it CS). You can wipe-out in the programming courses and still get
into the department. About 1/2 our courses involve programming, and half
don't (involve here means doing programming, not studying subject material
related to programming: our advanced analysis of algorithms doesn't do much
programming).

Of course, as you point out, students are given all sorts of library code for
lexical analyzers, stack, queues, graphs, association tables. They learn to
read the specifications for these packages, and use these packages to do all
sorts of interesting applications. This is doable in Pascal, but much harder
(no instantiation of generic packages with protected, exportable types).

I'll assert that at the end of a 15 week quarter (for us, the middle of our
2nd 10 week quarter) students are doing projects in Ada with less effort than
the could in Standard Pascal, given best-effort libraries supplied by the
instructor.

Rich Pattis




-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Richard E. Pattis			"Programming languages are like
  Department of Computer Science	 pizzas - they come in only "too"
    and Engineering			 sizes: too big and too small."
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.misc,sci.math
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: Scientists as Programmers (was Re: Small Language Wanted)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:09:10 GMT

In article <17mcr4INN4qq@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
> "a quality of implementation issue" (a euphemism for
> "we don't really give a shit" [...]

No, it's a euphemism for "we have no control over your compiler vendor. If he
insists on selling you a wheelbarrow with square wheels we can't prevent it,
and don't accept responsibility for it".
-- 
Peter da Silva                                               `-_-'
$ EDIT/TECO LOVE                                              'U` 
%TECO-W-OLDJOKE Not war?                        Have you hugged your wolf today?
Ferranti Intl. Ctls. Corp.      Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012       +1 713 274 5180
Newsgroups: comp.edu
From: adams@pooh.sdd.trw.com (allen Adams)
Subject: Scientists/Engineers/Business(ers) As Programmers
Summary: Teaching people to code
Keywords: Programming, Scientist, Engineer, Business
Organization: TRW Inc., Redondo Beach, CA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 21:21:13 GMT

Having been a teaching assistant for the first CS class for non-CS 
majors (which included EE, ME, CE, Business, etc.) and being an instructor
for the second class for non-CS majors who couldn't get enough of 
programming :-) at Purdue, the objective in both classes was to give the
non-CS majors enough information so that they could do reasonably well
out in the 'real' world.  The first class taught was FORTRAN; the second
had Pascal.  The second class also introduced the idea of data structures
and ways to use them (linked lists, stacks, queues, etc.).  My impression
is that those who major in non-CS areas are looking at computers as
a means to help them get their job done.  Most of them could really care
less if their code was pristine enough to be shown as an example of how
to do software engineering.  That is why teams of people, with various
backgrounds including CS, probably will generate more software engineered
code than those teams that don't.  If you major in CS, then ideally one
is interested in the best way(s) to generate code.  That is why software
engineering is of interest.  If you are EE, ME, etc., it should not be
surprising that their interest might not be as great as CS'ers in the area
of software engineering.

My conclusion is that non-CS majors have too many other classes to
really care/appreciate software engineering.  Is that bad??  I think
not.  When I was an undergrad at the University of Kentucky, I took
a EE class that I really enjoyed, but I didn't take more.  If I tried 
hard enough, maybe I could draw a logic circuit, but it certainly would
not be as sophisticated as a true EE.  Do I care??  No, that is why
I am glad there are people who majored in EE; it doesn't interest me, but
we need them around.  I certainly hope the reverse is the case; I enjoy
learning software engineering techniques, but one of my roommates who
is an ME, could care less about software engineering.  That is somewhat
frustrating, but that is the way of the world.  If need be, we could
work on a project where he figured out the control system, and I could
write the software to be reused.  And working together would probably
make us both better off.  Thank goodness the world is filled with a
variety of people, not just clones.

Allen Adams

Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.misc,comp.arch,sci.math
From: hip@a.cs.okstate.edu (HUFFMAN BRADLEY SP)
Subject: Re: Scientists as Programmers (was Re: Small Language Wanted)
Organization: Oklahoma State University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 21:12:56 GMT

From article <1992Aug31.170849.11927@mprgate.mpr.ca>, by mcvey@mpr.ca (Iain McVey):
> 
> 'Computing Science types' who truly understand accounting should write
> better accounting packages, shouldn't they?
>
Ha!

You just reminded me of one of my favorite grips with "computer science", 
every time I mention that "computer science" professors should try to 
teach more real world problems I'm hit with the go old "We teach science,
not coding".  Even had a professor ask me why I program in COBOL at my
job, dumb founded at such a silly question I said "I like to eat".

Also I suggest to a friend of mine who is about to get her Ph.d in Agronemy
that she should go work in industry for a few years, her respones was "No,
it makes it harder to get a faculty position later".  My instance respones
was "You mean universities don't want people with real world experence?".
To which she replied "You got it".

The point of my ramblings is that there is more to computers that small 
algorithms for your next journel article.  Life changes when you have 
a payroll to get out and most computer science people I've met in a 
university setting are so wraped up in their "science" they couldn't 
handle payroll for a small 10 person company let alone a corporation.

Since accountants must take continuing education credits, I think professors
should every 2 years be forced to go work in industry for 3 months.
From: rro@cs.ColoState.EDU (Rod Oldehoeft)
Newsgroups: comp.edu
Subject: Re: Are programmers Computer Scientists?
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:43:43 GMT
Reply-To: rro@cs.ColoState.EDU
Organization: Colorado State University

In article <1992Sep3.174548.29169@ulowell.ulowell.edu>, wex@cs.ulowell.edu (Paul M. Wexelblat) writes:
|> 
|> The (quite valid) question raised is whether Fortran should be
|> taught to CS students.

I think the opportunity should be there, but not the requirement, and
certainly not as a first language.  We offer a half-semester module
that assumes the student can program in a modern language.

|> 
|> My question is: 
|> 
|> 	Just because someone programs (is required to program)
|> 	a. Is that person a Computer Scientist
|> 	b. Should that person be called a Computer Scientist.
|> 
|> 	-or- 
|> 	are all programmers Computer Scientists?
|> 	[are all programming courses CS courses?]

This is related to the question "Are all programmers software
engineers?"  In industriana the two terms have become somewhat
interchangeable.  However, software engineering also has a 
definition as a discipline (mostly) within computer science.

-- 
|--------------------------------------------------------------|
| Rod Oldehoeft                    Email: rro@cs.colostate.edu |
| Computer Science Department      Voice: 303/491-5792         |
| Colorado State University        Fax:   303/491-6639         |
| Fort Collins, CO  80523                                      |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|
| Three outstanding attitudes---obliviousness to the growing   |
| disaffection of constituents, primacy of self-aggrandizement,|
| and the illusion of invulnerable status---are persistent     |
| aspects of folly.   ---Barbara Tuchman, "The March of Folly" |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|
From: kmagel@plains.NoDak.edu (ken magel)
Newsgroups: comp.edu
Subject: collaborative work
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:26:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: plains.20161
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network


     What is your opinion with regards to the value or harm in having student 
work together on programming projects?  
Xref: sparky comp.edu:1477 comp.lang.fortran:3367 comp.lang.misc:2883 comp.arch:9164 sci.math:10853
From: ajtd@honey.st-and.ac.uk (Tony Davie)
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.misc,comp.arch,sci.math
Subject: Re: Scientists as Programmers (was Re: Small Language Wanted)
Date: 2 Sep 92 09:05:41 GMT
Organization: St.Andrews University

In article <1992Aug31.144045.11416@hubcap.clemson.edu>, steve@hubcap.clemson.edu ("Steve" Stevenson) writes:
> 
> My experience is that most computer science types would not know the best
> numerical algorithm because they don't undertand the science. The problem
> continues to be that scientific codes are meant to deal with nature and
> that takes someone who understands the problem. The problems keep getting
> worse as more university dumb-down the CS curriculum.
> 
In my experience as a computer scientist with a numerical analysis background,
most scientists (as opposed to mathematicians) would not know the best numerical
algorithm because they know no numerical analysis and many don't seem to
want to know. Things as simple as
calculating scalar products to at least double length don't seem to be
known about.

In addition, many of the best non-numerical algorithms seem to be neglected.
Bubble sort STILL seems to be the most used sorting method, for instance.
Xref: sparky comp.edu:1386 comp.lang.fortran:3255
From: mcohen@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil (Marty Cohen)
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Small Language Wanted
Summary: a reference to an article about modular programming in Fortran
Keywords: modular programming
Date: 27 Aug 92 18:33:32 GMT
Followup-To: comp.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity

Dave Tholen writes:
>Well, maybe we define modular differently, but I consider my code to be
>quite modular.  My main programs consist of a rather large number of
>calls to library routines that I've written, and lots of programs use
>these library routines.
For a method of writing modular programs in Fortran 77, see: SIGPLAN
Fortran Forum 11,3, Sept 1992 (ACM Press) ppg 11-19, Data Encapsulation
Using Fortran 77 Modules, by L.L.DeLong, D.B.Thompson, and J.M.Fulford,
Hydrologists, U.S. Geological Survey, Bldg 2101, Stennis Space Center,
MS 39529.

>And if the elimination of computed GO TOs will
>help make FORTRAN more structured, then you can simply not use them.
In Fortran 77 there is no way to code a while loop without using a GOTO.
-- 
Marty Cohen  mcohen@brl.mil  {uunet|rutgers}!brl!mcohen
Custom House Rm 800, Phila. PA 19106 (215)597-8377 Fax (215)597-2240
Newsgroups: comp.edu