| > 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? 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/ |