HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Ari.Huttunen@hut.fi (Ari Juhani Huttunen)
Subject: Re: Scientists as Programmers (was Re: Small Language Wanted)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
	<1992Sep1.173636.6387@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>
	<1992Sep2.133810.24957@newsroom.bsc.no>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 23:15:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.133810.24957@newsroom.bsc.no> izahi@bsc.no (Raul Izahi Lopez Hernandez) writes:

!    A good compiler and a good optimizer can help any scientist to write
! reasonable code, however there is no software yet that can help a CS
! person write any physics code.

What do you mean by 'reasonable code'? Do you mean code that solves correctly
the test problems that were available when the code was written? Or do you
mean code that solves _any_ problem it was intended to solve, regardless
how different the actual problem is from the original test data?

If the former is what you mean by 'reasonable code', then go ahead and
use untrained programmers and rely on the compiler and optimizer to
do the job. (NOTE that I did not write 'physicist' in that sentence.)
If the latter is your concern and you want correct solutions, use 
a professional!

To produce first quality code, the best solution would in my view
be to use 1) a physicist 2) a computer science person, paired up in
a team. Both should know something of the other's profession. Neither
is sufficient alone. Of course, a person that can do both would be
better, but being mere mortals, such persons are difficult to find.
--
...............................................................................
Ari Huttunen   			       Any similarity to other alien life forms
				          is purely coincidental.
					      <Alien 3 misquote>
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.misc,comp.arch,sci.math
From: john@aquarius.unm.edu (John Prentice)
Subject: Re: Scientists as Programmers (was Re: Small Language Wanted)
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 02:33:19 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Physics & Astro, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Distribution: na

In article <1992Sep3.020355.20338@u.washington.edu> rons@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ronald Schoenberg) writes:
>In article <MIKE.92Sep2100445@majestix.cs.uoregon.edu> mike@majestix.cs.uoregon.edu (Michael John Haertel) writes:
>>In article <MEISSNER.92Sep1202838@curley.osf.org> meissner@osf.org (Michael Meissner) writes:
>>> C++.
>>
>>Ah, yes.  "The most complicated complex number extension ever invented
>>for any language."  (I first heard that from Bart Massey.)
>
>Yeah, but in C++ if you don't like the implementation you can write
>your own.  Would you be able to do that in Fortran 90?

Fortunately, you wouldn't need to because the designers were not brain
dead enough to leave in out in the first place :-) .

John
-- 
Dr. John K. Prentice                      
Partner, Quetzal Computational Associates    
3200 Carlisle N.E., Albuquerque, NM   87110-1664; 505-889-4543
john@aquarius.unm.edu -or- jkprent@cs.sandia.gov -or- prentice@rufous.cs.unm.edu
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.misc,comp.arch,sci.math
From: taylor@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Ross Taylor,Peyt312,6652,2655436)
Subject: Re: scientists as programmers (was: Small Language Wanted)
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 12:27:22 GMT

From article <1992Aug26.155946.3449@newshost.lanl.gov>, by jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles):
> In article <l9lrciINNb7b@almaak.usc.edu>, ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes:
> |> [...]
> |> I agree with the original poster -- in general good scientists are
> |> focussed on their application areas and simply don't invest in knowing
> |> about computers.  Long experience often makes them good coders, but
> |> rarely good programmers.  Look at the accent on fortran, for example:
> |> 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.

This argument is ludicrous.  I use Fortran because its best suited to the
jobs I do with it.

> 
> A good programmer *can* use *any* language and always picks the one
> best suited to his task (Fortran in the case of scientific/numerical
> work).  A good programmer would *never* even use the argument that
> language choice is a measure of *programmer* quality.
> 
> -- 
> J. Giles

Here here, in my group we use Fortran, Pascal, Basic, C, C++ and assembler
(in decreasing order of frequency) depending on the task in hand.  We even
have software systems that use 4 of these languages!

Ross Taylor

Newsgroups: comp.edu
From: danh@quantum.on.ca (Dan Hildebrand)
Subject: Re: Scientists as Programmers
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 18:04:32 GMT
Organization: Quantum Software Systems

In article <134918@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> miller@diego.llnl.gov (Patrick Miller) writes:
>|> davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen) writes:
>|> ... To do this even competently is a skill which
>|> conspicuously eludes most people who don't write code for a living, and
>|> to do this with consummate skill requires training, practice, and a
>|> natural talent given to only a few people. 
>
>In 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 understand the science. The problem
>|> continues to be that scientific codes are meant to deal with nature and
>|> that takes someone who understands the problem. ...
>------------------------------------------------------------
>Both writers have a point.  Computer science types can produce better,
>more elegant code because they understand the nature of _computing_,
>while physicists, chemists, etc... can write better codes because only
>they understand the nature of the _science_.

Have you ever noticed that the best niche-specific software tends to be 
written by either a person who is an expert in more than one profession ( 
ie: computing and that niche ), or by a collaboration between two or more 
individuals, providing both computing expertise, and the niche expertise. 
This debate regarding scientist/programmers vs. programmer/scientists is 
only another facet of this viewpoint.


Dan Hildebrand                     email: danh@qnx.com
Quantum Software Systems, Ltd.     QUICS: danh     (613) 591-0934 (data)
(613) 591-0931 (voice)             mail:  175 Terrence Matthews          
(613) 591-3579 (fax)                      Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2M 1W8
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.fortran
From: hybl@umbc4.umbc.edu (Dr. Albert Hybl (UMAB-BIOPHYS))
Subject: Re: scientists as programmers (was: Small Language Wanted)
Organization: Univ. of MD, Baltimore County
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 21:30:41 GMT

In article <h=bnn6@lynx.unm.edu> john@spectre.unm.edu (John Prentice) writes:
>...                     Fortran 77 is out of date, everyone agrees
>with that.
Not yet.  Based on usage it is still a useful programing tool.
It needs upgrades to provide better portability and enhancements
to provide modern functionality.  In my opinion F90 does not do
the job.  

>            Fortran 90 is a modern language, ...
Perhaps fashionable, but not modern.  F90 is different but not
really different, many of the old F77 warts are still present.
F90 is enhanced but not really enhanced, array indexing may be
better for (parallel machines) but F90 fails to facilitates
conforming binary data file definitions so massive data sets
can be exchanged and used interactively at and between remotely
located machines in a mixed vendor environment.

The suicide gene has not been removed:  [In F77 Section 1.3.2 says
"Exclusions.  This standard does not specify: ... (4) The
results when the rules of this standard fails to establish an
interpretation."]  That rule effectively says vendors can add
almost any extensions to the language that they think will help
sell their machine which has contributed to the poor portability
of Fortran source code and has caused, in part, the precipitous
decline in use of Fortran among potential users. 

Albert Hybl (umbc4.umbc.edu)
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.fortran,sci.general,sci.math
From: jsvrc@rc.rit.edu (Doctor FORTRAN)
Subject: Scientists as Programmers (was Re: Small Language Wanted)
Summary: Scientists are *Good* Programmers! (Well, some of them, anyway)
Originator: jsvrc@bruno.rc.rit.edu
Organization: RIT Research Corp
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:24:10 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.154501.8654@colorado.edu> ejh@khonshu.colorado.edu (Edward J. Hartnett) writes:

> [. . . . ] I think that
>what you are seeing is not that FORTRAN lends itself to rotten code,
>but that scientists usually write bad code, in whatever language they
>use. No offense to scientists, but I have rarely if ever seen a
>scientist who was a good programmer.

Then you haven't met Dr. FORTRAN. :-) Seriously, there are scientists who
write good code, and there are those who write bad code. Going by my personal
experience, I would imagine that at least some of the scientists who write
good code have in the past written bad code that came back to haunt them.

Nevertheless, you do have a point. Software specialists will argue about the
best data structure to use for a problem, and still be trying to dope it out
while the scientist has the whole thing already coded. That's because the
scientist will see the program as what it truly is: a means to an end, rather
than as an end unto itself. If computing is an end unto itself, it cannot
be of practical consequence. (Didn't Hamming like to say that the purpose of
computing was insight, not numbers?) But I must disagree when you characterize
scientists as bad programmers. That's bigotry, and a stereotype to which I
must strenuously object.

I thank you.

Doctor FORTRAN
From: mschaeff@pilot.njin.net (Marc Schaeffer)
Newsgroups: comp.edu
Subject: COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION
Keywords: COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:04:18 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


Hoping this is an apporpriate inquiry for this group.  Please respond
to mschaeff@pilot.njin.net as I don't get to browse newsgroups as
often as I'd like.

I'm interested in hearing from Computer Science educators regarding
the various multi-user systems used in undergraduate computer science
education. Specifically, I'm interested in comments on the premise
that one can't conduct a high quality undergraduate program without
extensive use of an IBM mainframe in order to provide students with
exposure to a VM operating system, PL/1 and IBM Assembler.  Are more
people teaching PASCAL or C or something else in introductory courses
these days rather than PL/1?  What about Assembler? Are other
Assembler platforms (e.g., SUN/SPARC) able to support a high quality
undergraduate course?

In sum, any advice about the importance of wide (i.e., in lots of
courses) use of an IBM mainframe, as opposed to other multi-user
systems (VAX, SUN/SPARC, RISC based boxes, 486/50 PCs running UNIX) in
an undergraduate Computer Science curriculum would be much appreciated.

Please note: I am not a computer scientist.  Any ignorance in this
question should be attributed to my role as an administrator trying to
explore a problem beyond my academic expertise.
Xref: sparky comp.edu:1531 comp.lang.fortran:3426 comp.lang.misc:2932 comp.arch:9223 sci.math:10989
From: steve@hubcap.clemson.edu ("Steve" Stevenson)
Subject: Re: Scientists as Programmers (was Re: Small Language Wanted)
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:40:45 GMT

davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen) writes:

>  No optimizer will ever replace using the right algorithm to solve the
>problem, no programming tool will ever generate meaningful names, no
>automated indenter or pretty-printer will ever generate useful comments
>or truly readable code. To do this even competently is a skill which
>conspicuously eludes most people who don't write code for a living, and
>to do this with consumate skill requires training, practice, and a
>natural talent given to only a few people. 


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.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, comments written by someone who doesn't know
the science is not likely to be interesting.

-- 
===============================================================================
Steve (really "D. E.") Stevenson           steve@hubcap.clemson.edu
Department of Computer Science,            (803)656-5880.mabell
Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-1906
Xref: sparky comp.edu:1390 comp.lang.fortran:3259 comp.lang.misc:2794 comp.arch:9081 sci.math:10666
From: dwight@geohub.gcn.uoknor.edu (Dwight D. Moore)
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: scientists as programmers
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:37:02 GMT
Reply-To: dwight@geohub.gcn.uoknor.edu
Organization: Geosciences Computing Network, Univ. of Oklahoma

>
>...too much stuff to include...
>
There are really several problems when considering a "good programmer":

1. Good coding techiniques (modularity vs. the "one routine program", documenting
     your code,  readability, declaring your variables explicitly, name your variables
     something useful instead of "th" or "de",...etc)

2. Efficient code (i.e. understanding the underlying concepts to improve code
     performance). Do you index your array in declared subscript order (similar to 
      memory order, i.e. a[i][j][k], this makes a difference). Do you minimize your
      expressions (removing extraneous mults by rephrasing your equation) or
      replace division by mults when possible?  I have seen where simple changes
     in an equation in a loop improve performance and cut execution time in half.

3. Documentation.  Do you document your code to indicate what is going on?
      Readability, is part of documentation; the more readable your code is, the
      easier it is to maintain, debug, port, etc. Is there paper documentation describing
      methodologies, algorithms for your model, general approach to the problem?

Scientist that I have encountered generally learn (a few do, acutally) to write readable
code, and pick up a few tricks for efficient coding. This depends on the scientists
experience and training, but little exposure to good techniques, and good coding
techniques inhibits, their growth.  If I taught a short lecture to a group of scientists,
I would focus on #1 and #3 (too many people under -estimate the value of  #3) and
work on #2 later...you can always improve your code efficiency after it works, but
if it is hard to read, you will waste a lot of time trying to figure out where to start.

There is really a fourth category for using data structures, and maybe a fifth for
advanced programming concepts, but that isn't necessary when talking about scientific 
models and Fortran 77, which is probably still the best language for scientific models.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dwight D. Moore
Geosciences Computing Network
University of Oklahoma

dwight@geohub.gcn.uoknor.edu (129.15.40.10)
These opinions do not necessarily represent the opinions of OU or the GCN.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.edu
From: wex@cs.ulowell.edu (Paul M. Wexelblat)
Subject: Are programmers Computer Scientists?
Originator: wex@bigmax.ulowell.edu
Reply-To: wex@cs.ulowell.edu
Organization: Univ. of Lowell CS Dept.
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:45:48 GMT


There are currently (I know "presently means "soon", not "now")
several threads running in this group that seem to have a similar
basis.  This question is prompted by the discussion of
"how many Fortran coders does it take to..."

The (quite valid) question raised is whether Fortran should be
taught to CS students.

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?]

-- 
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.

	...Wex
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.misc,comp.arch,sci.math
From: pchris@dcc.uchile.cl (Chris Perleberg)
Subject: Re: Scientists as Programmers (was Re: Small Language Wanted)
Originator: pchris@pehuen
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 13:59:37 GMT
Reply-To: pchris@dcc.uchile.cl
Organization: Universidad de Chile, Depto. de Ciencias de la Computacion


In article <1992Aug31.133811.3626@crd.ge.com>, davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen) writes:
> In article <34742@cbmvax.commodore.com>, jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) writes:
> 
>   The problem as I see it is that too many scientists and engineers
> think that because they can write working code they don't need (or are)
> programmers. Most people can learn to play the paino, but would agree
> that they are not professional quality, even the "background music in a
> piano bar" professional quality. Yet they think that programming
> somehow requires less training, practice, and dare I say it, *talent*
> than music.

I worked for two summers in a physics research center (Mission Reseach Corp)
in Santa Barbara, Calif.  All the people working there were PhDs in Physics
and they all wrote nuclear codes in FORTRAN.  They found CS programmers to
be useless: "....it's easier to teach a PhD en Physics how to program then
to teach a CS programmer Physics...."  There is a hell of a lot of truth in
that statement.  Most PhD's in Physics are reasonably intelligent and 
programming is not really a difficult challenge.  And scientific code 
often naturally structures itself.

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......

Saludos,
	Chris Perleberg
	pchris@dcc.uchile.cl
Xref: sparky comp.edu:1508 comp.lang.fortran:3402 comp.lang.misc:2912 comp.arch:9198 sci.math:10926
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.misc,comp.arch,sci.math
Subject: Re: Scientists as Programmers (was Re: Small Language Wanted)
From: chisnall@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (The Technicolour Throw-up)
Date: 4 Sep 92 00:01:15 +1200
Distribution: world
Organization: Computer Science,University of Canterbury,New Zealand

From article <1992Sep1.202814.13937@crd.ge.com>, by davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen):
>   You don't need much CS to program, and you don't need much programming
> to do CS research.

An excellent example of the latter being Dana Scott.  When he was given the
Turing award his speech started with an apology for winning the award despite
not knowing the first thing about actual programming.

--
Just my two rubber ningis worth.
Name: Michael Chisnall  (chisnall@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz)
I'm not a .signature virus and nor do I play one on tv.
From: tmm@dvnspc1.Dev.Unisys.COM (Tim McCaffrey)
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.misc,comp.arch,sci.math
Subject: Re: Scientists as Programmers (was Re: Small Language Wanted)
Date: 1 Sep 92 21:53:22 GMT
Organization: Unisys Corporation, Devon Engineering Offices


       Great, a PhD in CS, and he still can't turn of 132 column mode
       so the rest of us can read what he wrote.

	And I still can't seem to submit an article correctly :-)

						Tim McCaffrey
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.misc,comp.arch,sci.math
From: izahi@bsc.no (Raul Izahi Lopez Hernandez)
Subject: Re: Scientists as Programmers (was Re: Small Language Wanted)
Organization: Bergen Scientific Centre, Bergen, NORWAY
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 13:38:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.173636.6387@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> edp@math.zko.dec.com (Eric Postpischil) writes:
>
>On the other hand, I (a senior software engineer) have seen code written
>by scientists.  While it manages to work, there are serious oversights
>like forgetting to initialize variables, numerical instabilities, et
>cetera.  I can be sure the code works on some data, but it has never
>been properly tested by a good software engineer.
>
>To say programming is not really a difficult challenge is to be unaware
>of many of the pitfalls of computing, both numeric and algorithmic.  On
>the numeric side, a physicist might be unaware of the proper order in
>which to arrange arithmetic operations to preserve accuracy.  On the
>algorithmic side, a physicist might be unaware of the issues of
>computational complexity that would let them speed up a program or make
>an infeasible program feasible or the issues of what problems are even
>computable (recursively enumerable sets, et cetera).

   A good compiler and a good optimizer can help any scientist to write
reasonable code, however there is no software yet that can help a CS
person write any physics code.

-- 
         -----> All opinions expressed here are my own, not IBM's <-----
Raul Izahi Lopez	Izahi Engineering
izahi@bsc.no		IBM Bergen Environmental Sciences and Solutions Centre
			Thormoehlensgate 55, 5008 Bergen, NORWAY (47-5)54-4653
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.fortran
From: mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (J. D. McDonald)
Subject: Re: scientists as programmers (was: Small Language Wanted)
Organization: UIUC SCS
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 13:57:18 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.113215.20137@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz> ecmtwhk@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Thomas Koenig) writes:

>schuette@wl.com (Wade Schuette) writes:


>Oh yes, and make the people use either straight SI units (without any
>multiplicators) or dimensionless numbers. 

That is **TERRIBLE** advice for many cases. It would be OK to use
pure SI for a program to be used to teach freshman. But it would be wrong
fro most other purposes, certainly in my field. A good programmer
(well, a really topnotch one) would know better than that!!

Units are very important, not only for understanding, but, even more
important, for numerical accuracy. SI units are amost never the best ones 
except for trivial codes. 

Some sort of natural units are probably best for large calculations.
I personally loathe dimensionless units -- as, for example, are 
traditional in quantum structure calculations or general relativity.
But that is amatter of taste, as they are often of a size that makes the
numbers close to one (i.e. quantum structure calculations).

Also, SI units are often not the units normally used when discussing
certain topics. For example, in my field, dynamics of chemical reactions,
SI units are essentially **never** used. Oh, people may quote heats of
formation in them, or laser pulse energies, but the pressures in reaction 
chambers are never ever actually discussed in them - people usually use 
torr. Energies are usually quoted in electron volts or, very common, 
wavenumbers.


And the less said the better about the loathsome SI electromagnetic units, 
which are so badly suited for calculations that the SI description document
mentions that fact and almost breaks down and says "for this purpose we 
suggest you use Gaussian CGS".

SI is somewhat like Unicode (see comp.fonts and comp.std.internat) .... 
It is an attempt by purists (note nationalistic flame to come: often
European rather than American) to dictate a purist approach that often
becomes piggishly silly.

Doug McDonald
  

Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.fortran