Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!DKAUNI2.BITNET!UI0T
From: UI0T@DKAUNI2.BITNET ("Thomas Koenig")
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: FORTRAN
Message-ID: <"89-10-24-18:27:20.32*UI0T"@DKAUNI2.BITNET>
Date: 25 Oct 89 01:27:00 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 26



dftsrv!iris613!stailey@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Ken Stailey) writes:
> The only good FORTRAN is a dead FORTRAN.
I don't like FORTRAN very much either, but, after working with it for
almost a year, I have come to realize that there are reasons why it
still survives today. It is a very powerful tool for numerical work
(COMPLEX type, different precision for sin, cos ect. (am I flaming C?
Perhaps I am)), and if one maintains strict programming discipline,
it is possible to write structured and legible code in it. It is
possible to write useful and portable programs within the standard
(something that still has to happen to C), and there is a huge amount
of numerical software written in it.  It is also inelegant and
bug-prone in certain areas (array passing, COMMON blocks, few control
statements), but a good compiler can help a lot with that.
(I didn't start working with FORTRAN on my own accord, but because
I had to - working on a IBM mainframe for which there IS no
other decent compiler here at the computer center).
In reply to the question about FORTRAN for the ST: I heard that
Prospero FORTRAN is very good (it implements the full FORTRAN77 -
standard), but I haven't tried it myself yet.

Thomas  Koenig                   UI0T@DKAUNI2.BITNET
                                 UI0T%DKAUNI2.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
(soon: new address, old machine) UI0T@IBM3090.RZ.UNI-KARLSRUHE.DE
'Ich dachte nicht, ich untersuchte.'            Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen