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: <434@uni2.bcm.tmc.edu>
Date: Sun, 15-Nov-87 21:06:43 EST
Article-I.D.: uni2.434
Posted: Sun Nov 15 21:06:43 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 17-Nov-87 02:00:15 EST
References: <50500015@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> <5774@j.cc.purdue.edu> <9370@mimsy.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@bcm.tmc.edu
Lines: 24
Summary: F8X

In article <9370@mimsy.UUCP>, chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
> 
> There is a simple solution: consider the suffix part of the language
> name.  F66 is a different language from F77, which is different from
> F8X.  If you want to run old F77 programs after the new standard is
> out, make sure you buy F77 systems, not F8X systems.

There are three rubs here. 1) As I pointed out, the problem is that a large
amount of retraining is required to move to this new language. If you are
used to programming in a certain style and it completely changes, it becomes
hard to switch between the two. 2) If F8X becomes an AFIPS standard, it will
become the required compiler to use. (As far as many government contracts
are required). 3) There is no guarentee that a vendor will always provide the
f77 compiler if he is only required to provide a fortran compiler.

I do believe that a good case could be made for developing a language for
sicentific use to replace Fortran which does reflect the progress over the
last 30 years in language development, just don't call it fortran.


Richard H. Miller                 Email: rick@svedburg.bcm.tmc.edu
Head, System Support              Voice: (713)799-4511
Baylor College of Medicine        US Mail: One Baylor Plaza, 302H
                                           Houston, Texas 77030