Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!brainerd From: brainerd@unmvax.unm.edu (Walt Brainerd) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: Two Fortran Standards Message-ID: <303@unmvax.unm.edu> Date: 25 Aug 89 19:30:08 GMT References: <282@unmvax.unm.edu> Organization: University of New Mexico at Albuquerque Lines: 47 In article , bill@ssd.harris.com (Bill Leonard) writes: > > a) Probably most of us wouldn't have bothered. "New" languages seldom > > succeed, whatever their virtues. > > Does that mean, Walt, that you admit that FORTRAN/8x is a new language? > Hardly. Come on Bill, you know that it is just the opposite. Fortran 8x contains ALL of F77 as a subset. The biggest new feature is an extension of the idea of FORmula TRANslation to arrays. Modules are an extension of the idea of block data subprograms. Etc. Who in the world would design a "new language" and come up with this? > > ... Fortran 8x has been kludged to death, creating some > > horrible messes trying to accommodate those who want to make all > > of the features of F77 be integrated with the new ones. ... > > . . . Walt now calls it a > "kludge" and a "mess" . . . A fairly long leap, but maybe I was a bit strong. The whole thing is not a Kludge and a Mess, but parts certainly are. Some of these are due to adherence to the desirable goal of upwards compatibility with F77; others are there in the (I think) misguided attempt to integrate all old features with new ones. > > I find it incredible that anyone can argue for protecting "the investment > in FORTRAN programs and programmers", and yet argue against retaining the > one product they all currently use: FORTRAN/77. > We all used to use Fortran 66; we all used to ride in stage coaches; we all used to die at age 30. Some of us like to progress. F77 is being retained as a subset of F8x; this provides both the protection and the progress. > I may be one small voice crying in the wilderness, but I will always support > the public's right to choose. What a radical idea for an American! > People who can't see but one side of things often seem to appeal to patriotism, religion, etc. If the "right to choose" is the overriding issue here, then we should have two or three dozen "standards" for Fortran. In this case, the "right to choose" is exercised by a representative body deliberating and making a single choice ("standard"). This is another idea central to American and other democracies! -- Walt Brainerd Unicomp, Inc. brainerd@unmvax.cs.unm.edu 2002 Quail Run Dr. NE Albuquerque, NM 87122 505/275-0800