| Re: What does an optimal scientific programming language/environment need? [message #36425 is a reply to message #36424] |
Fri, 19 September 2003 12:35   |
Jason Nielsen
Messages: 1
Registered: September 2003
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, grunes wrote:
> 3. Very rapid developement and testing. Requires extreme conciseness,
> support of arrays, complex number, linear algebra, finite element and
> numerical integration of functions and differential equations, and
> little need for type and shape declarations. Can easily switch on
> automatic detection of subscript checking, memory reference checking,
> argument mismatches, fixed and floating point errors. FORTRAN style
> adjustable array bounds (e.g., a(-3:4, 5:7)).
Very efficient built-in univariate and multivariate random number
generation would be a nice touch ;-)!
> 8. A compiled mode that really is as fast as FORTRAN or C, if you add
> those declarations. Compiler would produce 2nd level code for
> compilation by g77 and gcc.
If you could manage this you would definitely get peoples attention.
Most modern array/matrix interpreted languages: Matlab, S-plus, R, Octave,
Euler, IDL, Yorick, Ox, GAUSS etc., etc., etc. have most of your other
points covered. However, all of them suffer from the fact that they are
too slow for intensive simulation. I personally use a couple of these
regularly and when the going gets tough re-code sections that are slowing
things up in Fortran95 for dyn.loading. However writing some code in your
favorite matrix language, adding some type declarations and compiling the
sucker to a fast binary would be a nice touch. The only in-development
project trying for something along these lines is LUSH:
http://lush.sourceforge.net/
Unfortunately they are using the dreaded lisp infix syntax.... urrrggh I
can't stand that ;-)! I suppose I'll just stick with my Python, R,
Matlab, and Fortran95 mix until you are finished your project ;-).
Cheers,
Jason
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
