Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wasatch!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!convex!mozart!psmith From: psmith@mozart.uucp (Presley Smith) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: Two Fortran Standards Message-ID: <1598@convex.UUCP> Date: 27 Aug 89 17:33:53 GMT References: <282@unmvax.unm.edu> <303@unmvax.unm.edu> Sender: usenet@convex.UUCP Reply-To: psmith@convex.com (Presley Smith) Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx. Lines: 165 In article <303@unmvax.unm.edu> brainerd@unmvax.unm.edu (Walt Brainerd) writes: >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? Okay Walt... If Fortran 8x contains ALL of F77 as a subset, why did the committee vote at the February meeting, 32,0,2, to change the introduction of the proposed standard, introduction page i line 7 and 8 FROM: "Any standard-conforming FORTRAN 77 program is standard conforming under this standard, with the same interpretation." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ TO: "Any standard-conforming FORTRAN 77 program is standard conforming under this standard." Gives one a real warm feeling that if a program is standard conforming under FORTRAN 77 it will execute under Fortran 8x, BUT it's POSSIBLE that it will get a different answer or that the programmer will have to change the program to get it to execute in the same manner as it did on FORTRAN 77. Hum... "Fortran 8x contains ALL of F77 as a subset" you claim? Read on... What about the vote in X3J3 on Document 58, 111-RRR-12, "Extra Precision option for DATA statement", that was DEFEATED on a role call vote by 24-13? To quote from document 111-RRR-12: "The committee (X3J3), in a previous action, REMOVED the Fortran 77 permission for processor to supply extra precision. Comment 338.44 deplores the "extra precision" feature of Fortran 77. Comment 518.24 suggests that the Fortran 77 rule must remain in order to be UPWARD COMPATIBLE from Fortran 77. In particular, standard conforming programs executing on standard conforming Fortran 77 processors will NO LONGER EXECUTE the same way in Fortran 8x. Distasteful as the rule may be the committee should recognize that removing it creates this situation. If this is the intent, it should be explicitly stated." The committee has voted by rejecting 111-RRR-12 to STATE that programs which use this Fortran 77 feature will NO LONGER EXECUTE THE SAME WAY in Fortran 8x. 111-RRR-12 was proposal to ADD this feature back into the Fortran 8x language for upward compatibility. It was defeated. Still think "Fortran 8x contains ALL of F77 as a subset"??? How many other examples are there? NO ONE KNOWS! This standard has become so large and complex, that I'm not convinced today that there are not many other places where language incompatibilities have been introduced between FORTRAN 77 and Fortran 8x. I don't believe that a proper audit has been conducted on this current document out for public review to insure that FORTRAN 77 is still contained in it and that programs that are standard conforming on FORTRAN 77 will still be standard conforming on Fortran 8x and will produce the same results on Fortran 8x. Anyone who believes all of FORTRAN 77 is still in 8x and that their FORTRAN 77 programs will execute without change on a FORTRAN 8x compiler are in for a SHOCK! You asked another good question Walt... who would design a "new language" and come up with this? Maybe you'd like to answer that one in another article on the net. > >> > ... 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. It's true... certain parts are a kludge and a mess. Does the FORTRAN community want want to live for the next 10 YEARS with a Fortran that is a "kludge" and a "mess" with NO other FORTRAN standard available? That's the CHOICE that is being made IF we don't keep FORTRAN 77 ALIVE and WELL as an ACTIVE standard until the Fortran 8x "mess" is cleaned up. Cleaning up FORTRAN 8x could take several years and another round of public review. I would encourage EVERYONE to write to X3 concerning the NEED to keep FORTRAN 77 as an ACTIVE standard until this "mess" is cleaned up. Walt is one of the members of X3J3 that has supported the proposed 8x standard for years and voted "YES" on this standard as a replacement for FORTRAN 77. If he believes it's been "kludged to death", it certainly makes me worry... If you are concerned about upward compatibility, send your letters of concern about upward compatibility and this "mess" of Fortran 8x to: Fortran Public Review X3/CBEMA 311 First St NW Suite 500 Washington DC 20001-2178 >> >> 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! It's unclear to me that the "representative body" is listening to the concerns of the FORTRAN community. When I meet with my customers, I get words like "our representatives are nothing but 'professional meeting attenders' and that they 'listen to the users, IGNORE them, and then vote the way they (the committee members) want'." (Direct quote from a company from the UK last week.) When I look at the previous public review, I note that many thought the proposed standard was too complicated, to large, etc. The committee removed a 'token' set of features and then added more features to it making the resulting standard that is out for public review LARGER than the previous public review version. Fortunately, the US standards process in the IS a democracy. The PUBLIC does count. Every comment is important. (Even though X3J3 has yet to send answers to people who commented in the first public review...) The fact that X3J3 has NOT yet responded to the first public review is certainly a HOT topic in the groups that MANAGE X3J3. Those groups ARE willing to listen to your comments. No one should confuse X3J3's failure to respond, in a timely manner, to the first public review comments as REQUIRED by the ANSI rules, as a signal that ANSI is NOT concerned about this situation. There is much concern at the X3 committee and above and there is great pressure on X3J3 to comply with the rules. So, send your letters to X3 and X3J3. In this country, EVERYONE has the right to have a opinion on this proposed standard and someone in the ANSI process will review ALL letters that are sent in. And, eventually, you WILL get a response... AND, if you don't like the response, YOU have the right to appeal to the higher ANSI groups as is being done right now with the ANSI C standard. So, send in your letters and express your opinions... Walt and I seldom agree on anything... BUT, I certainly agree with him on this... It's a kludge and a mess!