| "Physics/Chem still use Fortran, and aren't about to do the port to C/C++ due to funding." If funding's a problem across many fields then wouldn't it perhaps make better sense to just accept Fortran as the most appropriate language for certain well defined application types/fields and concentrate on improving the language, that is fixing its actual or perceived limitations in current environments? It would seem more efficient to centralize effort to improving just the language and its tools than to convert or rewrite a whole world of disparate applications that have been developed over many decades. After all, take English for instance, at any point in history, say 1600, its grammar and vocabulary were appropriate for the time. Moving on 400+ years till now we didn't chuck English away and replace it with a seemingly better language such Esperanto but progressively updated it to modern requirements. I have to admit to some bias here in that Fortran was my first language so it acted as the template for others. That said, I am not convinced that the enormous plethora of different languages that have flooded programming in recent decades has benefited computing and CS to the extent that perhaps it ought to have as there has been a great deal of unnecessary duplication and overlap that's led to wasted human effort—the need to learn many different languages, lack of uniformity etc. The large number of languages, lack of agreed consensus/standards—the most appropriate language for a given class of applications, etc.—has also led to language ghettoization where programmers swear by one language they've become familiar with and continue to use for jobs where another would be more appropriate. And one can't blame them for not wanting to learn a new language seemingly every other year. It seems to me that rationalizing and simplifying the language problem ought to be a high priority for CS. Given its long and mature history, its entrenched position in certain fields and its proven suitability for math-intensive work, that process could begin with Fortran as it would likely be the least disruptive. |
Yes it would. It would make far more sense than writing whitepapers extolling the risks of staying with the language, for example.
> It would seem more efficient to centralize effort to improving just the language and its tools than to convert or rewrite a whole world of disparate applications that have been developed over many decades.
There are ISO committees dedicated to improving Fortran[1].
...
> It seems to me that rationalizing and simplifying the language problem ought to be a high priority for CS.
It is not. This would relegate CS to a different role at a university, more of a tool building and improvement (e.g. engineering) than a "science". Moreover, there is no real money to be made, or reputation to be created by improving a tool. Especially one that has been in use so long.
CS loves to follow/lead with the new shiny thing. This is how the profs get grants. Show their value to the community. Get their students hired and starting companies. Or taking a leave from university, and going to work as chief scientist of AI at large global companies. (cough cough)
Most of these researchers would prefer to show their value and the value of their thoughts/work, by creating new and shiny things in languages or new languages. Yes, this is cynical. I've seen it first hand. I've watched fads/trends wax and wane in CS for a while now. Often times being unaware that much work was being repeated.
[1] https://j3-fortran.org/