Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!sun-barr!texsun!convex!bleikamp@convex.UUCP From: bleikamp@convex.UUCP (Richard Bleikamp) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: Two Fortran Standards Keywords: Fortran 8x Message-ID: <1592@convex.UUCP> Date: 25 Aug 89 21:48:09 GMT References: <282@unmvax.unm.edu> <303@unmvax.unm.edu> Sender: news@convex.UUCP Reply-To: bleikamp@convex.UUCP (Richard Bleikamp) Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx. Lines: 37 In article <303@unmvax.unm.edu> brainerd@unmvax.unm.edu (Walt Brainerd) writes: >In article , bill@ssd.harris.com (Bill Leonard) writes: >> 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. > ... >Who in the world would design a "new language" and come up with this? > >> > ... Fortran 8x has been kludged to death, creating some >> > ... >> >> . . . 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. Walt, why do you feel that attempting to integrate Fortran 77 features with the new 8x features (so both can be used concurrently) is a mistake? If you want to replace the Fortran 77 standard, then you need to accomodate a gradual migration to 8x features, as old programs are enhanced/updated over time. By not allowing co-existance of new and old features you`re forcing users to convert an entire sub-program at a time (if not entire programs) to the "new" form in order to utilize new 8x features. It's likely that this will slow user acceptance of 8x, except for new development. I will agree that if Fortran 77 is retained as a seperate standard, that the committee might have decided that 8x would best be used for new development and therefore could disallow certain combinations of old/new features. If Fortran 77 is retained as an ANSI standard, should X3J3 consider revising the proposed standard, or has the process dragged on too long? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rich Bleikamp bleikamp@convex.com Convex Computer Corporation