2 ms·

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

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.

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.