The sheer amount of dedication is awe-inspiring. In the 80s, at Imperial College, London, Theoretical Physics Group, we came across some correspondence intended for one of the professors, I think. This person had evidently "translated" his native Spanish into English, laboriously, via some dictionary we thought. We spent many tea breaks puzzling over phrases such as
"Is well-knew the refran: of the said to made it has a good road."
"The language assumes contiguous memory, column-major order, and no hidden aliasing between arrays."
One out of three ain't bad.
"Column-major order", that's the one. That just says that there is an implied order of elements of an array. This enables efficient mapping of an array of the language definition to storage with a linear address space. It does not require storage to be organised in any particular way.
"Contiguous memory". Not really, the language definition does not even use the word "memory". The language is carefully defined so that you can implement it efficiently on a linear address space in the presence of caches (no accident that IBM machines in the 80s were pushing caches while CRAY was pushing vector processors). The term "contiguous" in the language definition just means a collection whose parts are not separated by other data objects.
"no hidden aliasing between arrays". This is a crude mis-statement of the actual rule of argument association across subroutine/function caller-callee boundary. The rule takes pages to describe fully. A language that still has EQUIVALENCE statement (although marked obsolete) cannot be said to disallow aliasing. It is still quite hard to find a compiler that will reliably diagnose inadvertent aliasing at runtime. The actual rule in Fortran says something like "thou shall not cause any effect on (dummy name) A through a reference to some other name, unless (some-clause-x or y or z)".
It is not suited to cases where the machine state is experienced by the user at all times (games, hardware-control, real-time transactions). It is very suited to cases where the machine is expected to act like a SSBN, disappearing from view until a large floating-point calculation is ready.
Can someone explain to me why although we've known that classical physics is not a correct description of the hardware of the universe for at least 100 years now, we are still hooked on 90-year-old Turing Machines which cannot physically exist (they violate quantum mechanics) and whose theoretical limitations are, consequently, irrelevant.
But here, you don't present any argument that your recommended course of action will have a desirable outcome, or any outcome at all.
Which, ironically, fits like a glove.
Fine, I get it, the term has been over-used and has consequently become meaningless. Orwell noted the over-use of "fascist", in 1944! Feel free not to use it. But surely you are not expecting some kind of outcome?!
"Is well-knew the refran: of the said to made it has a good road."
reply