3 ms·

This is very clearly about a professional research project, not some hobby code a guy wrote over a few spare weekends.

cinntaile 5y ago
> that kept growing I don't think it started off in that polished state. Ignore the hobby if it makes it easier for you to reply to the contents of my comment.
- SiempreViernes 5y ago
  They explicitly state that: "This simulation program, originally called cns4u, started as a relatively small C program that ran on the Cray-Y/MP supercomputer at NASA Langley Research Center in 1991." and the abstract for the 1991 report they link reads in part: "The unusual features of this program are that it is written in C and makes extensive use of sophisticated data structures to encapsulate the data. The idea of writing the code this way is to make it easier than traditional FORTRAN codes to parallelize for the Multiple- Instruction-Multiple-Data style of parallel computer." so pretty clearly it's always been a professional academic research project. This means you have severely misunderstood the context in which this code was written: they didn't maintain interest in the code because they could use a fancy language, they did it because it was integral to answering questions that they were paid to investigate and that they've dedicated decades of their life to study.
  - cinntaile 5y ago
    My impression is that rewrites are rarely worth the effort and it's better to improve on what you have, but this is the business economics perspective. It sounds to me like this is essentially a research project that kept growing? The authors have managed to keep their interest in the project by being able to rewrite the code while avoiding previously made architectural mistakes and having fun while doing it? Is this a fair take or am I underestimating the advantages? To be clear, I read the blog post and there have definitely been tangible advantages and they are still enjoying the language 6 years in so it looks like they made a good choice. You seem to still be stuck on word usage, so I rewrote my comment to focus on what matters. Do you still disagree with what I write, if yes what do you disagree with? > they didn't maintain interest in the code because they could use a fancy language, they did it because it was integral to answering questions that they were paid to investigate and that they've dedicated decades of their life to study. Which they could have done in C++ as well since they already hade the code in C++, only it would have been a more painful process. But they could have rewrote the project in C++ as well for example, was this not a viable approach? If not, why? I believe there is a difference between research code and business code, where researchers have more freedom to choose languages that suit their projects rather than focusing on output.
    - SiempreViernes 5y ago
      The main reason is also stated: "We were, and still are, mechanical engineers and students of gas-dynamics first and programmers second. C++ was a lot of trouble for us." C++ is just not very fun to use if you're not a programmer.
      - cinntaile 5y ago
        So basically what I said. They have more fun and it keeps them interested in doing the work.
- nautilius 5y ago
  See, the content of your post is formed by the words you choose. Which other words are contradictory (or at least not necessary) to what you are trying to say? And what is it you are trying to say? It's really hard to find that out for us if you yourself aren't sure about that.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - cinntaile 5y ago
    There was a whole post there, he chose to selectively focus on one word. There is not much I can do about that. What is it that you are trying to say?
    - nautilius 5y ago
      What I am saying is that you were not able to formulate your thought to a concise sentence. Should be clear enough.

> that kept growing I don't think it started off in that polished state. Ignore the hobby if it makes it easier for you to reply to the contents of my comment.

SiempreViernes 5y ago
They explicitly state that: "This simulation program, originally called cns4u, started as a relatively small C program that ran on the Cray-Y/MP supercomputer at NASA Langley Research Center in 1991." and the abstract for the 1991 report they link reads in part: "The unusual features of this program are that it is written in C and makes extensive use of sophisticated data structures to encapsulate the data. The idea of writing the code this way is to make it easier than traditional FORTRAN codes to parallelize for the Multiple- Instruction-Multiple-Data style of parallel computer." so pretty clearly it's always been a professional academic research project. This means you have severely misunderstood the context in which this code was written: they didn't maintain interest in the code because they could use a fancy language, they did it because it was integral to answering questions that they were paid to investigate and that they've dedicated decades of their life to study.
- cinntaile 5y ago
  My impression is that rewrites are rarely worth the effort and it's better to improve on what you have, but this is the business economics perspective. It sounds to me like this is essentially a research project that kept growing? The authors have managed to keep their interest in the project by being able to rewrite the code while avoiding previously made architectural mistakes and having fun while doing it? Is this a fair take or am I underestimating the advantages? To be clear, I read the blog post and there have definitely been tangible advantages and they are still enjoying the language 6 years in so it looks like they made a good choice. You seem to still be stuck on word usage, so I rewrote my comment to focus on what matters. Do you still disagree with what I write, if yes what do you disagree with? > they didn't maintain interest in the code because they could use a fancy language, they did it because it was integral to answering questions that they were paid to investigate and that they've dedicated decades of their life to study. Which they could have done in C++ as well since they already hade the code in C++, only it would have been a more painful process. But they could have rewrote the project in C++ as well for example, was this not a viable approach? If not, why? I believe there is a difference between research code and business code, where researchers have more freedom to choose languages that suit their projects rather than focusing on output.
  - SiempreViernes 5y ago
    The main reason is also stated: "We were, and still are, mechanical engineers and students of gas-dynamics first and programmers second. C++ was a lot of trouble for us." C++ is just not very fun to use if you're not a programmer.
    - cinntaile 5y ago
      So basically what I said. They have more fun and it keeps them interested in doing the work.
nautilius 5y ago
See, the content of your post is formed by the words you choose. Which other words are contradictory (or at least not necessary) to what you are trying to say? And what is it you are trying to say? It's really hard to find that out for us if you yourself aren't sure about that.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- cinntaile 5y ago
  There was a whole post there, he chose to selectively focus on one word. There is not much I can do about that. What is it that you are trying to say?
  - nautilius 5y ago
    What I am saying is that you were not able to formulate your thought to a concise sentence. Should be clear enough.