Re: Programming skills required by mathematicians?

Marshall wrote:
> On Jun 26, 8:35 pm, Phil Hobbs
> <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Marshall wrote:
>>> On Jun 26, 2:14 pm, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Frederick Williams wrote:
>>>>> Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>>>>> I agree that C++ is a good choice.
>>>>> You must be joking!
>>>> Why?  I taught myself C++, and have used it to build things like a
>>>> big-iron clusterized electromagnetic simulator.  The combination of
>>>> C-like performance with the ability to manage complexity that comes
with
>>>> OO programming is very flexible and powerful.
>>>> Or did I miss something ultra-im****tant?
>>> You did, actually: the existence of other languages that are better
>>> at those things.
>> So in other words, "No."
> 
> If you are happy with where you are, and are not concerned
> about learning anything beyond what you already know,
> then by all means continue as you have been.
> 
> If you are going to advise other people, then doing so from
> a place of ignorance is being less than fully responsible
> 
> 
> Marshall

Ooooohhhh.  I'm put in my place, for sure.

How much physics do you know?  How many actual working things that are 
not programs have you built?  How many theorems have you published?

If the OP wants to be a language lawyer, or primarily a computer 
scientist, then of course he doesn't want to be limited to C++.  On the 
other hand, some of us need to build things that just work.  I don't 
claim that C++ is the only way to do this.  On the other hand, your 
defending Java as a numerics language is, well, parochial, and your 
defense of JIT compilers as producing *cough* more efficient code than 
static compilers suggests that your interests don't overlap mine by very 
much.  I care about getting stuff working, and C++ works for me and for 
a lot of other people.  You don't like it, but I can't help that.

When JIT compilers vectorize loops well or sup****t MPI, I'd be quite 
happy to use Java, if it offered something more than "See me! I can do 
that too!"

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs