CP2K build with Intel Compiler and MKL

Axel Kohlmeyer akoh... at gmail.com
Sun Oct 4 15:31:06 CEST 2009



On Oct 4, 3:22 am, Ondrej Marsalek <ondrej.... at gmail.com> wrote:
> All I can say to this, based on my own experience and talking to other
> users, is that the situation is very disappointing and discouraging,
> no matter what the causes are.

ondrej,

i am feeling with you and if you look back in the group's archive you
will find several, in part very provocative, posts by myself on that
subject. i just wanted to point out two issues to you: 1) at least you
_do_ have some detailed means to verify your compile 2) it is too easy
to _always_ blame the compiler, as it happens in my opinion too often.

i've tried several times to make a point that to me personally it
borders
on masochism to make fortran do object oriented programming (sorry
juerg,
i know you won't change your opinion). you _can_ do it and cp2k itself
is
proof that it _can_ work, but as a consequence you have overly
verbose,
confusing, and error prone programming, that on top of that demands
the
maximum from all currently existing compilers.
it is not that other languages are free of problems, just look at
the
metaprogramming madness in c++ (take boost for c++ as an example:
great
in principle, convernient to use, but a nightmare to maintain once
your
code got "infected" with it), but there are languages that can help to
make code transparend when used well, and here lies a missed
opportunity.

since it is the expressed opinion of the majority of the code
contributing
cp2k developers, that they won't change their style of programming,
there
is little hope that the situation will change fundamentally. but this
is
their freedom as developers and that is something one has to respect,
if
one wants to use their software. you _do_ get it for free and are by
no
means forced to use it.

cheers,
   axel.


More information about the CP2K-user mailing list