Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!timbuk!glover From: glover@sequoia.cray.com (Roger Glover) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: Fortran 90 status Message-ID: <123207.25873@timbuk.cray.com> Date: 26 Apr 91 18:31:00 GMT Article-I.D.: timbuk.123207.25873 References: <1991Apr24.202115.16119@dragon.wpd.sgi.com> Reply-To: glover@sequoia.cray.com (Roger Glover) Organization: Cray Research, Inc. Lines: 24 In article , mccalpin@perelandra.cms.udel.edu (John D. McCalpin) writes: |> |> Of course it is a very tough tradeoff. When I am developing |> applications I curse Fortran extensively because of its archaic |> structure and lack of error-checking. When I am doing science and |> need 500 Cray Y/MP hours to get my work done, I curse other languages |> (which have wonderful features that I would really like to use) for |> not running as fast as Fortran. To me, this sounds like an excellent reason to keep in your toolbox: - A friendly language that catches everything but bad thinking at compile time. Take your pick for there are many. - A fast, efficient language that can carry the workload. To me this is obviously Fortran 77, although some would argue that Standard C with Cray extensions (intrinsic complex data type, automatic and adjustable arrays (3.0), and "restricted" pointers (3.0)) will do in a pinch. ----------------- Roger Glover Software Instructor Cray Research, Inc. Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, not Seymour's.