The authors do a reasonable job of defining the problem and outlining the requirements for an appropriate solution. The paper describes a prototype project for automating part of the refactoring/compilation/debugging pipeline for large-scale Fortran code bases. All are changes are highlighted.Īuthor Response File: Author Response.pdf We have also uploaded the revised version of the paper. We have tried to answer to your feedback in the attached file. In this revised submission, we did our best to apply most of your suggestions and clarify the confusions. We really appreciate your time and efforts. All your comments and feedback were to the point and improved the quality of our work significantly. We would like to thank you for your thorough and detailed review of our submitted draft. How does the developed tool differ from existing similar tools? What are the benefits of using FortADT compared to similar tools? Are there any other strategies and approaches that could be used? How was the decision on selected methodology made?ģ) Authors need to explain the contribution of their research compared to the results of previous research. The introduction chapter does provide a short review on important concepts, but recent and relevant papers related to the research context are missing.Ģ) The Methodology chapter describes the author’s approach to the solution of the problem in detail, but does not argue the choice of methodology. However, there are some questions that are to be addressed before the paper can be published.ġ) The chapter referring to the results of previous research should be added. The results could be useful for both: future research and current practice. the answer is typically not, but there is certainly bias due to my use case.The paper is well written and the topic is relevant and of interest for scientific community. Later in time, when everything is stabilized, I decide if the boilerplate code is actually worth the effort just for the sake of using the same name for calling the function/subroutine on different types. Then I just put the different version in a module and keep the names different and clear. I don't write code for others to be used in a library, so I might be skewed, but whenever I find myself in the need of the same subroutine for different types (and honestly, this only happened for linked lists and sort/search stuff) I first take the chance to analyze the thing for every different data type, in order to understand if I can rearrange stuff differently, reuse memory in some cases, etc. Honestly, if a library is what you want to write, and you don't want to use Fortran interfaces and stuff, there is clear indication that you have selected the wrong language in the first place, at least for now (may change in the future, who knows). I know it is used a lot, but I feel pain every time I see such solutions. Personally, I am an integralist of formalisms, and the fact that you are using some meta language to solve an issue with your selected language, well. The meta-language approach is another one. The tedious, formal one is the interface (which is a non solution, because you actually write a lot of identical code + boiler plate stuff for the interface). In the second case, of course, there is no chance to use the two previous approaches and you need a different route. Still, as I wrote, I would prefer the latter. In the first case it is possible to use both the compiler flags and the selected kinds approaches. It isn't clear if you want to be able to compile your code in both single and double precision versions or if you want to write a set of functions and/or subroutines for both. Honestly, it really depends from what you actually want to do. This is explained in this stackoverflow answer : We can #define MYTYPE and #include a template file which uses the MYTYPE macro. I found out a trick to remove repetition. Writing the interface becomes tedious due to the amount of repeated code. Switching between single and double precision in Fortran - CFD Online Discussion Forums
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |