consider seriously the other tools. Because of the existing software base I think that it is important that our students know Fortran. But I also think that it is important that they be exposed to the newer languages. My students generally learn Pascal fint hut also learn Fortran because some of our research has been in converting large programs, e.g., MNDO, to the PC. Given a choice of language, they all orefer oroerammine . " " in Pascal (even some who were initiallv diehard Fortran programmers). I am sure that many scientists agree with Ragle, as I have been told hy many of them that "I have always used Fortran and I will never change." Frankly, this attitude puzzles me. As scientists we eagerly incorporate new technology into our research and education. The tremendous advances in chemical instrumentation over the past 30 years is an example of this. But weseem to want to ignore completely all progress in Computer Science for the same 30 years. Tremendous advances have been made in the areas of program design and implementation methodology, and we should take advantage of these developments both in teaching our students and in research. I seemto detect a bit of machismo in that "real scientists" only use Fortran. Perhaps the solution is to have the D.O.D. rename Ada and call it Fortran-88. Then we can all program in Fortran and still have a modern language. I have one brief additional comment. Thisis not adirect resoonse t u Ragle's letter l u t arcspame tosome who hove proposed Ba~rras the tenchin: lmguage of clwire The argument is rhnt wth Pnscal, or a n v ~ ~ t hcompiled er hnyuagr, thcstudrnt murr y
