Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uupsi!cmcl2!lanl!alm From: alm@lanl.gov (Alex Marusak) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: Fortran 90 status Message-ID: <22859@lanl.gov> Date: 29 Apr 91 19:34:43 GMT References: <1991Apr25.100524.9831@ariel.unm.edu> Organization: Los Alamos Natl Lab, Los Alamos, N.M. Lines: 66 > From: khb@chiba.Eng.Sun.COM (Keith Bierman fpgroup) > Subject: Re: Fortran 90 status > > In article <1991Apr25.043355.26420@ariel.unm.edu> prentice@triton.unm.edu > (John Prentice) writes: > > > In article khb@chiba.Eng.Sun.COM > > (Keith Bierman fpgroup) writes: > > > > > I believe that the vote was 26-9 to accept the document as it stood after > > > the edits. Two copies of the marked up document were carried to Walt > > > Brainerd (by two different X3J3 members, to protect against lossage due to > > > a plane crash). Voting against were the reps from: Microsoft, Convex, > > > Cray, Lahey, Harris, DoD, Boeing, Unisys and DEC. > > > > Gee, good to know only the minor players voted against it. So who voted for > > it? > > Everyone else. The formal postmeeting distribution hasn't reached me yet, so > I'd likely misrepresent someone if I relied on inference. However, in the last > go round several "minor" players such as IBM, Amdahl, Sun, DECUS, and misc. > national labs (and several foreign ones) voted Aye. A comment from a voting member from a national lab: I voted 'no' several votes back, when the pivotal votes were being taken (around the time of the first and second public reviews). Back then, I thought Fortran 90 was an unworthy successor to Fortran 77. I still do. I thought X3J3 responded inadequately to the comments from the first public review. I still believe this. However, the majority of X3J3 seems determined to proceed with Fortran 90. To my way of thinking, the recent votes are merely votes to forward the latest set of edits, bug fixes, clarifications, and the occasional substantive jury-rig, such changes to be included in the PREVIOUSLY-FORWARDED proposed new standard. In other words, if the majority of X3J3 wishes to persist in this mistake, then X3J3 should at least forward the best-edited, bug-free, clearest mistake that it is capable of producing. On that basis, I now vote 'yes'. Besides, I may be wrong. Fortran 90 may become wildly popular. Even though it is an unwieldy mixture of ideas (the old and the really old), largely appealing neither to the cutting-edge, computer-science types nor to the traditional, efficiency-hungry, bit-twiddling, 'full contact' sort of programmers Fortran is famous for, perhaps it will find a niche. And I will be very, very surprised. > From: prentice@triton.unm.edu (John Prentice) > Subject: Re: Fortran 90 status > > If Fortran Extended is not going to be recognized outside the U.S., then why > are foreign reps voting on it (or am I confused about what is the U.S. > standard versus the international one - ugh) ? Anyone know what the votes of > the DOE labs were? Fortran Extended is a creation of our parent organization, X3. X3 is a U.S. organization. Several X3J3 members objected to X3's actions and said so. Some X3J3 members approved; that is, approved of the U.S. keeping Fortran 77 and of adopting Fortran 90 at such time as the international community does. DOE labs, votes: LANL (Los Alamos) - yes (but see above) LLNL (Lawrence Livermore) - yes INEL (Idaho Falls) - yes. In the past, LBNL (Lawrence Berkeley) and ANL (Argonne) have voted 'yes'. Perhaps LBNL still does (I lose track).