Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!ut-sally!bcm!svedberg!rick From: rick@svedberg.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: F8X comments Message-ID: <422@uni2.bcm.tmc.edu> Date: Sat, 14-Nov-87 15:46:21 EST Article-I.D.: uni2.422 Posted: Sat Nov 14 15:46:21 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 15-Nov-87 19:27:35 EST References: <50500015@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> <5774@j.cc.purdue.edu> Sender: usenet@bcm.tmc.edu Lines: 29 Summary: F8X In article <5774@j.cc.purdue.edu>, ags@j.cc.purdue.edu (Dave Seaman) writes: > > Common blocks will no longer be needed. Why burden implementors with > something that is unnecessary? Why encourage users to stick to outmoded > features of the language? > Augh! Fortran has been around for many many years. Why is there such an insistance upon "improving" a language to the point it is totally different from existing implementations of the language. You will force a rewrite of many millions of lines of working code. This will force the redeployment of many programmers to do this upgrade which will not allow them to work on *new* applications. I have no objection to an evolutionary path for an existing language, but to totally rework the definition as it seems to be proposed is stupid. You also have to consider that there are many thousands of 'amateur' programmers who program in FORTRAN. (e.g. researchers, scientists and the like) who would have to totally relearn the language. Considering the fun we had with learning the new COBOL 74 and are having with COBOL 8x with professional programmers, the thought of retraining all of these people is a scary thought (No flames about the use of the word amateur. This is not meant to be a putdown of these people. I use the word to denote people who write programs as an adjunct to their jobs rather than using all of their time to write code.) In summary, a standard language should NOT BE CHANGED in such a drastic manner. Allow it to evolve, but do not change it into something different.