Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!caen!uwm.edu!psuvax1!hsdndev!cmcl2!adm!smoke!chidsey
From: chidsey@smoke.brl.mil (Irving Chidsey)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: What to call next version
Message-ID: <15163@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 12 Feb 91 13:08:34 GMT
References: <KHB.91Feb11173557@chiba.Eng.Sun.COM> <1991Feb12.055337.25661@ariel.unm.edu> <21844@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 41

In article <21844@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt4512c@prism.gatech.EDU (BRADBERRY,JOHN L) writes:
<In article <1991Feb12.055337.25661@ariel.unm.edu> john@ghostwheel.unm.edu (John Prentice) writes:
<>Before we get too busy inventing Fortran Extended Extended (over-extended?),
<>let me just point out that we don't even have compilers yet for the "old" new
<>standard (i.e., Fortran Extended) :-) ! 
<
<It is one thing to design a language 'on paper' or 'in
<committee'. It is quite another to adopt, support and USE it in
<practice. Many people who post to this group seem aware of
<extensions and extended-extensions to Fortran '90. However, I
<can't help but wonder if the 'new' version will fall into to the
<same abyss that the '77 version did. With each push for yet
<another extension, an adopted, debugged and universally
<IMPLEMENTED version seems further away...
<
<Over the last decade, the gap between what version of Fortran was
<being taught in universities and used in industry has increased.
<A large reason for this was the constant state of 'flux' Fortran
<seems to have been in since 77. Is this a cycle that must be
<repeated?
<
<John L. Bradberry        |Georgia Tech Research Inst|001100110011001100110011
<Scientific Concepts Inc. |Microwaves and Antenna Lab|Int : gt4512c@prism
<2359 Windy Hill Rd. 201-J|404 528-5325 (GTRI)       |GTRI:jbrad@msd.gatech.

	How about biting off manageable chunks?  Taking smaller steps
every 5 years instead of a humongous leap every 10-12 years.

	That would be more attuned to the rate at which extensions are
adopted, and the different suppliers wouldn't diverge as much.

	The name should obviously be Fortran Extended ** 2.


								Irv

-- 
I do not have signature authority.  I am not authorized to sign anything.
I am not authorized to commit the BRL, the DOA, the DOD, or the US Government
to anything, not even by implication.
			Irving L. Chidsey  <chidsey@brl.mil>