Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!mintaka!ai-lab!life!burley From: burley@pogo.ai.mit.edu (Craig Burley) Newsgroups: comp.object Subject: Re: FORTRAN is OO!?!? Message-ID: Date: 31 Dec 90 15:18:37 GMT References: <130.277b6062@vax1.cc.lehigh.edu> Sender: news@ai.mit.edu Organization: Free Software Foundation 545 Tech Square Cambridge, MA 02139 (617) 253-8568 Lines: 29 In-reply-to: lugjg@vax1.cc.lehigh.edu's message of 28 Dec 90 20:10:26 GMT In article <130.277b6062@vax1.cc.lehigh.edu> lugjg@vax1.cc.lehigh.edu writes: I just thought that I should mention that there is a raging debate concerning 'why FORTRAN is object oriented' in comp.lang.fortran. And it seems like they could use some help. I disagree -- I've been responding to some of the questions and comments. I don't think anyone is saying FORTRAN is object-oriented, just that, as with any language (including assembly), the collection of programming methods we refer to under the umbrella term "object-oriented" can be applied to Fortran programming, and that it might be nice for Fortran to someday offer features permitting more direct translation of the use of these methods into Fortran code itself. I did post an example for Fortran programmers of what good OO Fortran code might look like, IF there was such a thing, and discuss why it was a bit of an improvement over current Fortran techniques, and how it could be handled optimally (by degrees) by compilers. But I don't think anything I said could be reasonably interpreted to mean "Fortran is object-oriented". It ain't! That's not to say we wouldn't welcome some real comp.object jocks into the discussion on comp.lang.fortran. And if I've missed some posting saying Fortran IS object-oriented (even Fortran 90, which does come a bit closer but does not include inheritance, for example), feel free to jump all over it! -- James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson burley@ai.mit.edu