Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!yahoo
From: yahoo@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Kenneth L Moore)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Educating FORTRAN programmers to use C
Message-ID: <21604@unix.cis.pitt.edu>
Date: 14 Jan 90 12:39:23 GMT
References: <1016@sdrc.UUCP> <1990Jan6.003158.2039@aqdata.uucp> <1024@sdrc.UUCP>
Reply-To: yahoo@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Kenneth L Moore)
Distribution: na
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Services
Lines: 26

In article <1024@sdrc.UUCP> spabdul@sdrc.UUCP (abdul shammaa) writes:

>How do you convince your managment that it's time to throw away the
>ancient FORTRAN 4 when there are thousands and thousands of lines of that
>crap :-( ?! 

>uunet!sdrc!spabdul

I can relate to this story. I used to design nuclear reactor fuel
rods and all of our analysis codes were written in FORTRAN IV. 

However, you may be taking a microscopic (vs macroscopic) view of the
problem. While C gives many advantages, the cost of retraining, the
politics of change, and the cost of updating code might not be worth it.

This was especially true in our case since all codes had to be NRC
approved. (a very costly process)

Watch your ass. I remember one arrogant new guy who thought we
were all stupid for using FORTRAN. He claimed that Pascal was the only
programming language that made sense. He looked like a jerk and made
a lot of enemies.


-- 
I don't yell and I don't tell and I'm grateful as hell: Benny Hill