Re: Proposal to get Stephen to Improve the lot ofSpace Shuttle Programmers

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg60350] Re: [mg60327] Proposal to get Stephen to Improve the lot ofSpace Shuttle Programmers*From*: "David Annetts" <davidannetts at aapt.net.au>*Date*: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 03:27:17 -0400 (EDT)*Sender*: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

Hi John, > Can I get a conversation started about this topic? > Will a tool to convert FORTRAN to mathematica code be useful? > > The purpose would be to verify the integrity of the FORTRAN > code and then possibly recompile it to c++, using > Mathematica's features. > > The goal would be to take all that FORTRAN code out there and > give Mathematicians more option when designing code for > embedded systems. I'd suggest that a tool going the other way (ie Mathematica to F95, F2K or some variety of c++) would be far more useful than a tool to convert Fortran code to Mathematica. In this way, we might combine rapid application development (Mathematica) with vastly superior execution speed (pretty much any compiled language). As for Mathematica output to compiled languages (as opposed to interpreted), there is already MathCore's very expensive addons viz. MathC++ and MathF90 (http://www.mathcore.com/index.shtml). Secondly, there is MathLink, which enables one to link _existing_ code running as an executable to Mathematica. I'd like to suggest that perhaps with version 6, WRI might consider revising their Fortran output so that it is at least free-format and takes advantage of even F90's more modern features than their current F77 output. In summary, no, I don't think your tool would be particularly useful. Regards, Dave.

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Re: Proposal to get Stephen to Improve the lot ofSpace Shuttle Programmers***From:*Murray Eisenberg <murray@math.umass.edu>