Re: MeshSP vs. P21
On Wed, 2 Aug 1995, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> > >Of course, an off shelf Fortran compiler won't run on it.
> > >Some adaptation on the side of programmer will be needed.
> > >Alas, most scientists are nonprogrammers and _very_
> > >conservative. Bad luck.
> >
> > If it is fast enough, they will use it.
>
> Unfortunately, you are wrong. Most scientists do not use computers
> for anything other than paper writing and those few who do cannot
> program. I mean, they speak Fortran fairly well, but they cannot
> program. Though fairly bright they don't have time nor energy being
> terribly busy with their project. After all, that's what they are
> paid for: doing research.
If one follows the Lattice Quantum Chromo-Dynamics trend, one will see
that that this is not the case. Scientists at the edge of computing are
pretty aware, that stock solutions are not the right ones.
There are quite a few initiatives to build the "TeraFLOP computer," that
achieves its performance one _one problem only_ -- Lattice QCD. The
expenditure ranges from ~ $1000M from the Japanese government, an unknown
(to me) amount from Europe in the APE100 collaboration, $30M with the
Thinking Machines' network technology, $5M with stock processors and
custom "Network Gate Arrays" from Columbia University.
If one estimates the price of such a beast, built with F21 technology, it
comes out at about $1M (mainly for memory at PC prices :-)
What is easier for a scientist -- to get a $5M grant for hardware, or a
$1.5M grant --- $1M for HW and $.5M for SW? Ten years ago and nowadays
we have different answers.
If you build it, they will come.
--
Penio Penev <Penev@venezia.Rockefeller.edu> 1-212-327-7423
