Error in MIN and MAX
in [Matlab]
|
Prev: Simscape>Mechanical Source
Next: ezplot3 and hold bug?
From: Steve Amphlett on 31 May 2010 12:29 dpb <none(a)non.net> wrote in message <httmnf$76r$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>... > Steve Amphlett wrote: > > "Matt Fig" <spamanon(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > <hts20o$vt$1(a)fred.mathworks.com>... > >> It must be a slow day when a masking variable thread stays in the top > >> 5 for hours on end... > > > > I still think it's a huge problem with the Matlab language. A massive > > booby-trap sitting there, waiting. A bit like Fortran's implicit > > declaration of miss-spelled variables ... > > "IMPLICIT NONE" > > > ... or variables truncated by the 72'nd column cut-off. > > free-form source format... Ah yes, the "complicit nun". Something many hackers don't initially bother about and stick it in later, having been burned. Free-form source format is probably OK if you only have one compiler to worry about. When you have 7 (5 UNIXes, Linux and Windows), you need to code to the lowest common denominator. As recently as 1995, IBM's xlf had no abilty to go beyond the 72'nd column - we had to use a line-splitter to build our free-form source on that platform. Worse, most Fortran compilers don't warn if you forget the switches to allow "extended source", they just truncate. I'm with Rune on C++. It is so strongly typed that in general, if it will compile, it will work as planned. The compiler tells you where your mistakes are; you fix them; it works.
From: dpb on 31 May 2010 13:51 Rune Allnor wrote: > On 31 Mai, 15:42, dpb <n...(a)non.net> wrote: > >> I would simply ask that you just hold the vitriol on Fortran though; > > So why are you picking the fight in the first place? > I'm only responding when you go off on the diatribe -- there was a little chuckle aside earlier in the thread just for grins but as the smiley showed, that's all it was. You made a response that was reasoned to which I pointed out that Fortran also has generic procedures. In your response to that you then went off on the rant. It would have been find w/o that, I can take the misunderstandings of reading/interpretation but I don't see it as being fruitful to make such mindless assertions of the shortcomings of FORTRAN as of 30-40 years ago and I'll continue to refute those when made. If you'd just stop doing that, I'd be content. If you want to have a real discussion on the merits of Fortran vis a vis any other language and the difficulties in implementation of new features while retaining as much compatibility with prior Standards (or even argue that there's no place for evolutionary improvement but that every advance has to be from a totally new design standpoint w/o consideration of existing codebase), that discussion belongs somewhere else than cssm. Certainly there are known issues with implementing new features in Fortran and I doubt that there is any present or former member of J3 that thinks that the choices made are universally the best way to have proceeded even to this point. That some features would have been added differently if not for that constraint is also true. But, there are enough people that see the value in existing code and in maintaining compatibility to that code base that there has been and continues to be sufficient interest to have released two major Standards (F90 and F03) and a smaller revision F95 while F2008 is nearing completion/acceptance voting (or it may already been approved, I'm not exactly sure where in the cycle it is at the moment). And, obviously, it would be of little point in doing that if vendors weren't producing compilers implementing those revised Standards. And vendors are doing so. The point being, as I (and some others) have made before, the FORTRAN of your criticism is NOT the current state of Fortran and by making such blatantly uninformed pronouncements you're not helping anybody. --
From: Rune Allnor on 31 May 2010 14:49 On 31 Mai, 19:51, dpb <n...(a)non.net> wrote: > Rune Allnor wrote: > > On 31 Mai, 15:42, dpb <n...(a)non.net> wrote: > > >> I would simply ask that you just hold the vitriol on Fortran though; > > > So why are you picking the fight in the first place? > > I'm only responding when you go off on the diatribe -- there was a > little chuckle aside earlier in the thread just for grins but as the > smiley showed, that's all it was. Was it? > You made a response that was reasoned to which I pointed out that > Fortran also has generic procedures. In your response to that you then > went off on the rant. What rant? You made a ridiculous statement and I called you on it. I don't know why you don't post under your own name, so I can only guess that your native language is English. I can only imagine how it might feel to be taught linguistic subtleties of your native language by a foreigner half your age. Is *that* what's bothering you? If so, take it up with the guy you see in the mirror. Not me. > It would have been find w/o that, I can take the > misunderstandings of reading/interpretation but I don't see it as being > fruitful to make such mindless assertions of the shortcomings of FORTRAN > as of 30-40 years ago and I'll continue to refute those when made. Who have said anything about fortran as of 40 years ago? > If you'd just stop doing that, I'd be content. Who have said anything about fortran as of 40 years ago? > If you want to have a > real discussion on the merits of Fortran vis a vis any other language > and the difficulties in implementation of new features while retaining > as much compatibility with prior Standards (or even argue that there's > no place for evolutionary improvement but that every advance has to be > from a totally new design standpoint w/o consideration of existing > codebase), that discussion belongs somewhere else than cssm. Sure. I have stated very clearly in other threads what my position on fortran is: Fortran is an obsolete language that, while of significant hoistorical importance, is only interesting for its considerable legacy code base. Youngsters and novices who ask questions here about fortran ought to be made aware of that fact, and not tricked into wasting time and effort on long since obsolete languages. > Certainly there are known issues with implementing new features in > Fortran and I doubt that there is any present or former member of J3 > that thinks that the choices made are universally the best way to have > proceeded even to this point. That some features would have been added > differently if not for that constraint is also true. But, there are > enough people that see the value in existing code and in maintaining > compatibility to that code base that there has been and continues to be > sufficient interest to have released two major Standards (F90 and F03) > and a smaller revision F95 while F2008 is nearing completion/acceptance > voting (or it may already been approved, I'm not exactly sure where in > the cycle it is at the moment). And, obviously, it would be of little > point in doing that if vendors weren't producing compilers implementing > those revised Standards. And vendors are doing so. > > The point being, as I (and some others) have made before, the FORTRAN of > your criticism is NOT the current state of Fortran and by making such > blatantly uninformed pronouncements you're not helping anybody. Sure. I have stated very clearly in other threads what my position on fortran is: Fortran is an obsolete language that, while of significant hoistorical importance, is only interesting for its considerable legacy code base. Youngsters and novices who ask questions here about fortran ought to be made aware of that fact, and not tricked into wasting time and effort on long since obsolete languages. Others have explained their hands-on experiences with fortran, experiences that pretty much coincide with what I observed with my colleagues who used fortran. The presence of a standard does not mean much if it is not respected. The presence of a standard does not mean much if it only rubber-stamps everything that has been done so far. The presence of a standard does not mean much without a clear philosophy about how to proceed in the future. In case you haven't noticed, I have stated very clearly in other threads what my position on fortran is: Fortran is an obsolete language that, while of significant hoistorical importance, is only interesting for its considerable legacy code base. Youngsters and novices who ask questions here about fortran ought to be made aware of that fact, and not tricked into wasting time and effort on long since obsolete languages. Rune
From: Walter Roberson on 31 May 2010 15:34 Rune Allnor wrote: > Sure. I have stated very clearly in other threads what > my position on fortran is: Fortran is an obsolete language > that, while of significant hoistorical importance, is > only interesting for its considerable legacy code base. > Youngsters and novices who ask questions here about fortran > ought to be made aware of that fact, and not tricked into > wasting time and effort on long since obsolete languages. You have indicated that you do not know Fortran, and what you do describe of it reflects at best the state of Fortran up to 1977 (33 years ago). What _have_ you studied in this matter that might give people reason to believe that you are competent to judge this matter? > I can only imagine how it might feel to be taught linguistic > subtleties of your native language by a foreigner half your age. > Is *that* what's bothering you? One of the aspects of English is that a comma can indicate a pause to catch one's breath (mentally or physically), which is the way that dpb used in in his sentence. Using the comma that way is not encouraged in written work, but it is recognized (especially in connection with transcription of verbal material.) English has very few rules that have no accepted exceptions. English was not "designed": it evolved through a number of cultural clashes, with Latin (Roman official language), Vulgar Latin (the language of the Roman people), Greek, Scot, Angle, Saxon, Old Norse, French and German all making marked contributions to the structure and vocabulary of the language. There is no standardization body for it, and very few people consciously learn all the known "rules" (though they may employ the rules without knowing the reasons). English has been referred to as one of the hardest languages in the world to learn.
From: Rune Allnor on 31 May 2010 16:22
On 31 Mai, 21:34, Walter Roberson <rober...(a)hushmail.com> wrote: > Rune Allnor wrote: > > Sure. I have stated very clearly in other threads what > > my position on fortran is: Fortran is an obsolete language > > that, while of significant hoistorical importance, is > > only interesting for its considerable legacy code base. > > Youngsters and novices who ask questions here about fortran > > ought to be made aware of that fact, and not tricked into > > wasting time and effort on long since obsolete languages. > > You have indicated that you do not know Fortran, and what you do describe of > it reflects at best the state of Fortran up to 1977 (33 years ago). What > _have_ you studied in this matter that might give people reason to believe > that you are competent to judge this matter? I have compared fortran's role as a programming language with the steam engine: Of significant historical importance but obsolete by today. Would you accept such a claim about steam engines from somebody who does not have hands-on experience with them? If 'yes' - on what grounds? > > I can only imagine how it might feel to be taught linguistic > > subtleties of your native language by a foreigner half your age. > > Is *that* what's bothering you? > > One of the aspects of English is that a comma can indicate a pause to catch > one's breath (mentally or physically), which is the way that dpb used in in > his sentence. Using the comma that way is not encouraged in written work, but > it is recognized (especially in connection with transcription of verbal material.) Do I have to educate *two* native English-speakers on the matter? Do you comment on my criticism, which from your writings I have no reason to believe you have read? Or do you catch on to dpb's misunderstanding of what I criticized him of? Commas are irrelevant towhat I criticized in dpb's post. *Read* his post; contemplate the semantics. Selection of words. Phrasings. Again, I have commented extensively on what I reacted on in a different post, so I won't repeat it here. All it takes is that you *read* it. Rune |