SALEM(ID:347/sal010)Partial differential simulation systemContinuous simulations language, Morris, Lehigh, 1967 References: in [AFIPS] Proceedings of the 1968 Spring Joint Computer Conference SJCC 32 view details The most advanced and comprehensive work published to date is the SALEM, which was a doctoral dissertation by S. M. Morris under Prof. W. E. Schiesser's supervision at Lehigh University in 1967. SALEM is a digital simulation language and processor for solving partial differential equations. It accepts 17 different types of elliptic, parabolic, and hyperbolic partial differential equations of the second order. Constant or variable coefficients, linear or nonlinear, are allowed. General boundary and/or initial conditions can be expressed. Rectangular, cylindrical, and spherical coordinates may be used. A contribution is the automatic interval adjustment to maintain truncation-error bounds. However, until recently, the processor had not been released. in [AFIPS] Proceedings of the 1968 Spring Joint Computer Conference SJCC 32 view details Morris has developed the SALEM programming system to solve automatically one-dimensional parabolic and hyperbolic equations and two-dimensional elliptic and parabolic equations under various conditions, but limited to simple regular geometries. in [ACM] CACM 16(03) March 1973 view details The exact number of all the programming languages still in use, and those which are no longer used, is unknown. Zemanek calls the abundance of programming languages and their many dialects a "language Babel". When a new programming language is developed, only its name is known at first and it takes a while before publications about it appear. For some languages, the only relevant literature stays inside the individual companies; some are reported on in papers and magazines; and only a few, such as ALGOL, BASIC, COBOL, FORTRAN, and PL/1, become known to a wider public through various text- and handbooks. The situation surrounding the application of these languages in many computer centers is a similar one. There are differing opinions on the concept "programming languages". What is called a programming language by some may be termed a program, a processor, or a generator by others. Since there are no sharp borderlines in the field of programming languages, works were considered here which deal with machine languages, assemblers, autocoders, syntax and compilers, processors and generators, as well as with general higher programming languages. The bibliography contains some 2,700 titles of books, magazines and essays for around 300 programming languages. However, as shown by the "Overview of Existing Programming Languages", there are more than 300 such languages. The "Overview" lists a total of 676 programming languages, but this is certainly incomplete. One author ' has already announced the "next 700 programming languages"; it is to be hoped the many users may be spared such a great variety for reasons of compatibility. The graphic representations (illustrations 1 & 2) show the development and proportion of the most widely-used programming languages, as measured by the number of publications listed here and by the number of computer manufacturers and software firms who have implemented the language in question. The illustrations show FORTRAN to be in the lead at the present time. PL/1 is advancing rapidly, although PL/1 compilers are not yet seen very often outside of IBM. Some experts believe PL/1 will replace even the widely-used languages such as FORTRAN, COBOL, and ALGOL.4) If this does occur, it will surely take some time - as shown by the chronological diagram (illustration 2) . It would be desirable from the user's point of view to reduce this language confusion down to the most advantageous languages. Those languages still maintained should incorporate the special facets and advantages of the otherwise superfluous languages. Obviously such demands are not in the interests of computer production firms, especially when one considers that a FORTRAN program can be executed on nearly all third-generation computers. The titles in this bibliography are organized alphabetically according to programming language, and within a language chronologically and again alphabetically within a given year. Preceding the first programming language in the alphabet, literature is listed on several languages, as are general papers on programming languages and on the theory of formal languages (AAA). As far as possible, the most of titles are based on autopsy. However, the bibliographical description of sone titles will not satisfy bibliography-documentation demands, since they are based on inaccurate information in various sources. Translation titles whose original titles could not be found through bibliographical research were not included. ' In view of the fact that nany libraries do not have the quoted papers, all magazine essays should have been listed with the volume, the year, issue number and the complete number of pages (e.g. pp. 721-783), so that interlibrary loans could take place with fast reader service. Unfortunately, these data were not always found. It is hoped that this bibliography will help the electronic data processing expert, and those who wish to select the appropriate programming language from the many available, to find a way through the language Babel. We wish to offer special thanks to Mr. Klaus G. Saur and the staff of Verlag Dokumentation for their publishing work. Graz / Austria, May, 1973 in [ACM] CACM 16(03) March 1973 view details SALEM Probably the first elementary PDE language was SALEM [39], which was developed in the mid-1960s. It solved automatically parabolic and hyperbolic equations in one space dimension (tridiagonal algorithm) and two-dimensional elliptic and parabolic equations on a rectangle (alternating direction algorithm). Cartesian, cylindrical, and spherical coordinate systems were allowed. It was the user's responsibility to invoke an appropriate subroutine to solve his problem. SALEM is no longer supported by its developers. in ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS) 6(4) December 1980 view details |