Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ernie.Berkeley.EDU!corbett From: corbett@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Robert Corbett) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: X3 Vote on Fortran 8x Message-ID: <32026@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: 20 Oct 89 05:41:52 GMT References: <2192@convex.UUCP> <426@unmvax.unm.edu> Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: corbett@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Robert Corbett) Distribution: comp.lang.fortran Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 20 In article lamson@sierra.steinmetz.ge.com (scott h lamson) writes: >With all the reactionaries clinging to Fortran-77 forever, what can we do >with Fortran-x not having to comprimise to keep everyone together? > >It has been too long waiting for a revised standard to undertake new >initiatives at this point. But we could reconsider some things removed >from the first draft standard in the spirit of comprimise. I would >like to see parameterized derived types first, with perhaps limiting >this to non-precision parameters. Let's not forget to put back the world's most complex exception-handling scheme. BTW ,what ever happened to the features for interfacing with a CODASYL database? Surely they should be reinstated. How about adding features for parallel processing, object-oriented programming, real-time programming, artificial intelligence, OLTP, networked programming, etc. Yes, now that we don't have to worry about those reactionaries, we can turn Fortran into one heck of a language. Bob Corbett corbett@berkeley.edu