[openbeos] Fortran for BeOS ? Was: Multiprocessing,Mutithreading - Linux vs Openbeos

  • From: <kevin.lawton@xxxxxx>
  • To: <openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 13:12:42 -0000

Okay, I've always loved the simplicity of deploying BeOS 4.5, and found BeOS 
5.0 very usable once installed. Various issues over Matrox Graphics cards and 
Athlon processors were eventually solved via the BeShare web site. Anyway if 
there is reasonable interest in deploying Fortran under OpenBeOS I'd be happy 
to take it on board once the system can be booted from hard disk. The question 
is: 'Is there any interest in Fortran' - or thesedays does the general 
inclination lie towards Java and suchlike ?  
BTW: I can think of a few examples where I've programmed Java server-side 
applications which spawn (many) processes. :-)   
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Phipps [mailto:mphipps1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 13 November 2003 12:55
To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [openbeos] Re: Multiprocessing,Mutithreading - Linux vs Openbeos

You are quite correct that certain server scenarios are focused on high 
performance. The ones you list are perfect examples. They are also, I believe 
(and I am speaking somewhat outside of what I know), examples to prove my 
These are applications where you want throughput. You have a machine running 
(or very few) applications. Task switching is very low. The machine's whole job 
is to process data in and out very quickly. New jobs don't consist of spawning 
new processes - they consist of using existing processes.

BeOS and OBOS, on the other hand, are tailored for very fast switching times, 
interrupt latency and highest user responsiveness. Yes, batch systems are very 
fast, but that applies to daemons and already loaded applications. Their start 
time and switch time tends to be a little bit longer. Often their quantum is 
higher than that of a BeOS type system.

As far as porting Fortran, it sounds like a fun job. :) It shouldn't be all 
tough - especially if there is a Fortran front end to gcc.

On 2003-11-13 at 04:20:22 [-0500], kevin.lawton@xxxxxx wrote:
> Sorry, Michael, but I find myself disagreeing with you somewhat. I feel you 
> might be confusing, or at least blending, the roles for which server and 
> mainframes are respectively designed for. Okay, this is only my opinion, but 
> I 
> feel that the design and function of many server 'scenarios' is to provide 
> quick responsiveness: domain name server, web server, file server, etc - 
> their 
> role is to provide a quick response to requests from network clients. 
> Mainframes, on the other hand, have mostly been used for batch processing: a 
> mainframe op system tends to 'get out of the way' and allow the batch process 
> maximum resources in order to achieve optimum throughput. At least, that is 
> how 
> I perceive my experience.
> By the way, I'd be interested to know if there would be any interest in a 
> Fortran compiler to run under OpenBeOS, as this is a project I quite fancy 
> doing (but only if it would be useful). As you might guess, I have used 
> Fortran 
> to a significant degree in the past and feel it still has a place in the 
> scientific and mathematical arena.
> Kevin.

Other related posts: