Re: Program Translation - Nov. 14, 2013

Discussion in 'Perl Misc' started by Ben Bacarisse, Nov 17, 2013.

  1. "E.D.G." <> writes:

    > "E.D.G." <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> "E.D.G." <> wrote in message
    >> news:...

    >
    > Etgtab FORTRAN project
    > Perl speed comparison
    >
    > This Etgtab FORTRAN computer program related effort is
    > progressing much better than I thought possible. Here is some
    > information on the project plus a status report.
    >
    > The Etgtab program appears to be highly unique. And under the
    > right conditions it might be highly valuable to the international
    > scientific community. So, what we are attempting to do is get it
    > translated into some modern language that researchers around the world
    > can have their own programmers easily modify for their specific uses.
    >
    >
    > The first step is to get someone to actually prepare the new
    > code. And if it were up to me I would stay with FORTRAN.
    >
    > It appears that my retired programming colleague is going to be
    > willing to do the work since he has the program already partly
    > translated. But he will only prepare a True BASIC translation.


    There is a slight air in unreality to all this, but just in case this is
    a real project, here are a few random observations.

    Fortran is still the language that most scientists use, and the program
    is already a working Fortran program. The most significant thing you
    could do to revive this work is to document it and tidy up the code. If
    you wan to modernise the code (and there could be benefits in terms of
    clarity if you do so) a modern version of standard Fortran is the
    obvious choice.

    However, a few well-written pages explaining what the program does and
    how it does it, together with some more detailed descriptions of the
    algorithms will probably be more beneficial than any updating,
    especially if you can find references to papers describing the original
    work.

    Though to my mind secondary, tidying up the code would also help.
    Things could be clarified by introducing a few more utility functions,
    using more descriptive names, indenting loops, replacing out-dated
    constructs with newer ones, and so on.

    These two things will make the program far more accessible to the
    scientific community. Translating it into a proprietary (paid for)
    implementation of Basic will ensure that no one ever uses it again.
    True BASIC does not even have a Linux/Unix port.

    Finally, why are you timing Perl arithmetic? A translation into Perl
    does not seem to be an option.

    <snip>
    --
    Ben.
     
    Ben Bacarisse, Nov 17, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "E.D.G." <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > For one thing, the input and output routines need to be changed.
    > And we want it to be able to generate charts or graphs. The existing
    > program will generate only text data.


    You can generate charts and graphs in Fortran. Just use OpenGL via
    f2003 C interoperability. One project that does this is f03GL.
    Another project interfaces to GTK (gtk-fortran).

    --
    write(*,*) transfer((/17.392111325966148d0,6.5794487871554595D-85, &
    6.0134700243160014d-154/),(/'x'/)); end
     
    James Van Buskirk, Nov 17, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ben Bacarisse

    Roy Smith Guest

    In article <>,
    Tim Prince <> wrote:

    > Perhaps you would start with an automatic indentation tool before
    > translating. You may have a rule against using current syntax and
    > indentation for Fortran, but others don't.


    Does anybody still use ratfor?
     
    Roy Smith, Nov 17, 2013
    #3
  4. Roy Smith <> wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Tim Prince <> wrote:
    >
    > > Perhaps you would start with an automatic indentation tool before
    > > translating. You may have a rule against using current syntax and
    > > indentation for Fortran, but others don't.

    >
    > Does anybody still use ratfor?


    No. Well, I suppose it is possible you might find a soul or two
    somewhere, but you'd have to look prety hard. Ratfor became essentially
    obsolete with Fortran 77.

    --
    Richard Maine
    email: last name at domain . net
    domain: summer-triangle
     
    Richard Maine, Nov 17, 2013
    #4
  5. Roy Smith <> writes:
    > Henry Law <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 17/11/13 14:37, E.D.G. wrote:
    >> > All of my own important programs are written using Perl. I am starting
    >> > to run into calculation speed limitations with one of the programs.

    >>
    >> Your Perl code is, er, sub-optimal. There is absolutely no point in
    >> doing benchmarks until you've improved the code.

    >
    > Having spent many years in science (molecular biology), I disagree with
    > this sentiment.
    >
    > Scientists view computer programs as tools, no different from any other
    > piece of lab equipment or instrumentation they use. When picking a tool
    > to use, it's perfectly reasonable to evaluate what performance you can
    > get out of that without having to be an expert in its use. If I'm using
    > a spectrophotometer, there may be many things that instrument is capable
    > of doing, but as long as I'm getting the data I need from it, it's
    > serving my purpose. My goal is to do science, not to be an expert on
    > optics, or electronics, or data processing.
    >
    > The same goes for programming languages.


    Indeed it does. So, while your comfortable with BUYING spectrophotometers
    built by people who know how to do that, why on earth do you insist on
    hacking your own 'Rocky Horror Picture Show' crap code together to
    evaluate the data INSTEAD of concentrating on 'the science'?
     
    Rainer Weikusat, Nov 17, 2013
    #5
  6. >>>>> "BB" == Ben Bacarisse <> writes:

    BB> There is a slight air in unreality to all this,

    This is a far more polite way of putting it than I would. It's an
    earthquake predictor based on pseudoscience and technobabble.

    BB> Finally, why are you timing Perl arithmetic? A translation into
    BB> Perl does not seem to be an option.

    EDG has been trying ineffectually to get this suite of programs to work,
    integrating them with gnuplot and a Perl web application, for as long as
    I can remember. I suspect years ago someone told him that Perl was the
    One True Language for web applications and the evidence of the
    intervening decade has not been enough to convince him otherwise.

    Followups set to comp.lang.perl.misc; c.l.python and c.l.fortran have
    enough crazy overlap from c.l.p.m without adding me to the mix.

    Charlton


    --
    Charlton Wilbur
     
    Charlton Wilbur, Nov 18, 2013
    #6
  7. Ben Bacarisse

    gamo Guest

    El 18/11/13 05:22, Charlton Wilbur escribió:
    >>>>>> "BB" == Ben Bacarisse <> writes:

    >
    > BB> There is a slight air in unreality to all this,
    >
    > This is a far more polite way of putting it than I would. It's an
    > earthquake predictor based on pseudoscience and technobabble.
    >


    Maybe, but who knows? AFAIK could be small earthquakes caused
    by man made interventions. There was a recent scandal in Spain
    about that.

    Anyway, giving to someone an opinion is cheap. Recently I look
    at open mpi project and see F77 and F90 examples. So, Fortran
    it's not dead and he could stay with it and do new things in
    that or another language, i.e. using files between them.
     
    gamo, Nov 18, 2013
    #7
  8. >>>>> "g" == gamo <> writes:

    g> El 18/11/13 05:22, Charlton Wilbur escribió:

    >> This is a far more polite way of putting it than I would. It's
    >> an earthquake predictor based on pseudoscience and technobabble.


    g> Maybe, but who knows?

    This is why we have the scientific method. If EDG's model is useful, it
    will have predictive power, and he should be able to predict an
    earthquake with it. So he says something like "according to my model,
    there will be an earthquake of this approximate magnitude at this
    location in the month of February 2014." Then we wait and see.

    Without that falsifiable hypothesis, then all he has is pseudoscience
    and technobabble. He's been at this project for several years now and
    to my knowledge has not made one verifiable prediction. This puts him
    in the class of charlatan and mountebank; at least he is not trying to
    convince us of the existence of ectoplasm or give us messages from our
    dead relatives.

    Charlton




    --
    Charlton Wilbur
     
    Charlton Wilbur, Nov 18, 2013
    #8
  9. Ben Bacarisse

    Tim McDaniel Guest

    In article <>,
    Charlton Wilbur <> wrote:
    >This is why we have the scientific method. If EDG's model is useful,
    >it will have predictive power, and he should be able to predict an
    >earthquake with it. So he says something like "according to my
    >model, there will be an earthquake of this approximate magnitude at
    >this location in the month of February 2014." Then we wait and see.


    Also, the field of precise local earthquake prediction has had a lot
    of attempts and falsified claims. ("Precise" to exclude long-term
    probabilities, which are along the lines of "the 2008 Uniform
    California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF) has estimated that the
    probability of an M >= 6.7 earthquake within the next 30 years on the
    northern and southern segments of the San Andreas fault is somewhere
    between 21% and 59%.")

    So I think it's more plausible to have a priori suspicion of claims
    here.

    --
    Tim McDaniel,
     
    Tim McDaniel, Nov 19, 2013
    #9
  10. >>>>> "TMcD" == Tim McDaniel <> writes:

    TMcD> So I think it's more plausible to have a priori suspicion of
    TMcD> claims here.

    Oh, I think it's entirely likely that the whole earthquake prediction
    project is Internet-amplified crackpottery of the least harmful and most
    entertaining sort. But the response to "you never know" is
    "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and the number of
    people who simply don't understand the scientific method -- and thus who
    say "you never know" because they will never, in fact, know -- is
    staggering.

    Charlton



    --
    Charlton Wilbur
     
    Charlton Wilbur, Nov 19, 2013
    #10
  11. Ben Bacarisse

    Tim McDaniel Guest

    In article <>,
    Charlton Wilbur <> wrote:
    >>>>>> "TMcD" == Tim McDaniel <> writes:

    >
    > TMcD> So I think it's more plausible to have a priori suspicion of
    > TMcD> claims here.
    >
    >Oh, I think it's entirely likely that the whole earthquake prediction
    >project is Internet-amplified crackpottery of the least harmful and most
    >entertaining sort.


    "Least harmful"?

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/23/world/europe/italy-quake-scientists-guilty/
    "Earthquake experts worldwide expressed shock at the manslaughter
    convictions of six Italian scientists who failed to predict the deadly
    L'Aquila quake, ..."

    --
    Tim McDaniel,
     
    Tim McDaniel, Nov 20, 2013
    #11
  12. >>>>> "TMcD" == Tim McDaniel <> writes:

    >> Oh, I think it's entirely likely that the whole earthquake
    >> prediction project is Internet-amplified crackpottery of the
    >> least harmful and most entertaining sort.


    TMcD> "Least harmful"?

    EDGs project, not the whole scientific endeavor. The scientists in the
    article you cite (url below) were held responsible for their prediction
    which turned out to be incorrect. Since there's a legal concept of
    malpractice, I think it's reasonable to ask whether the scientists were
    guilty of it; I think, based on my knowledge of geology, that they were
    not, but the court did, and that's why there are appeals processes.

    Also, consider the other forms of Internet-amplified crackpottery; do
    you really think a legal error, likely to be overturned on appeal, is
    *more* damaging than white supremacy?

    Charlton


    TMcD> http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/23/world/europe/italy-quake-scientists-guilty/

    TMcD> "Earthquake experts worldwide expressed shock at the
    TMcD> manslaughter convictions of six Italian scientists who failed
    TMcD> to predict the deadly L'Aquila quake, ..."

    Charlton


    --
    Charlton Wilbur
     
    Charlton Wilbur, Nov 20, 2013
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. mecej4
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    149
    Jürgen Exner
    Nov 17, 2013
  2. mecej4
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    114
    Jürgen Exner
    Nov 17, 2013
  3. Terence
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    143
    Terence
    Nov 16, 2013
  4. Terence
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    129
    Terence
    Nov 16, 2013
  5. Ben Bacarisse

    Re: Program Translation - Nov. 14, 2013

    Ben Bacarisse, Nov 17, 2013, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    88
    Charlton Wilbur
    Nov 18, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page