Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!samsung!uunet!fernwood!uupsi!cmcl2!lanl!cochiti.lanl.gov!jlg
From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Fortran 90 status
Message-ID: <22849@lanl.gov>
Date: 29 Apr 91 16:44:34 GMT
References: <1991Apr24.202115.16119@dragon.wpd.sgi.com> <MCCALPIN.91Apr26112553@pereland.cms.udel.edu> <123207.25873@timbuk.cray.com> <1991Apr26.210247.17264@ariel.unm.edu> <1266@argosy.UUCP>
Sender: news@lanl.gov
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 18

In article <1266@argosy.UUCP>, ian@argosy.UUCP (Ian L. Kaplan) writes:
|> [...]
|>   I think that it would have been very difficult, if not impossible,
|> to get a group as large as the Fortran Standards Committee to agree on
|> features for MIMD parallelism.  There is not much in the way of
|> "industry practice" in this area and few people will agree on what
|> constitutes a "good" feature.  [...]

Yes.  All valid reasons for not jumping to some feature too quickly.
However, none of these arguments seem relevant to the actual features
that the committee _did_ adopt.  There seems to have been little attention
to "industry practice" in the design of features for Fortran Extended.
And, several features were added for which few people agree about what
constitutes a "good" feature.  Since the committee didn't follow these
guidelines for the features they _did_ put in, why shouldn't they also
include some coarse-grained parallelism support?

J. Giles