Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!brainerd
From: brainerd@unmvax.unm.edu (Walt Brainerd)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: X3 Vote on Fortran 8x
Summary: Simplify
Message-ID: <428@unmvax.unm.edu>
Date: 20 Oct 89 15:29:04 GMT
References: <2192@convex.UUCP> <426@unmvax.unm.edu> <32026@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Distribution: comp.lang.fortran
Organization: University of New Mexico at Albuquerque
Lines: 23

In article <32026@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, corbett@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Robert Corbett) writes:
>      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.
> 
This shows a complete misunderstanding of what has happened and what was
proposed.  Most of the "compromises" put in to appease the "reactionaries"
have complicated the language considerably.  Most of the things wanted
by WG5 are simplifications.  For example: removal of namelist I/O, structures in
common, user-defined characters sets, etc.  WG5 did request addition of
pointers, but so did a large number of American commentors; and it replaced
RANGE and identify, which were at least as complicated.  Perhaps the
addition of parameterized data types could be considered a complication,
but it certainly is a simplification from the point of view of the user.
-- 
Walt Brainerd  Unicomp, Inc.           brainerd@unmvax.cs.unm.edu
               2002 Quail Run Dr. NE
               Albuquerque, NM 87122
               505/275-0800