Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!nuchat!splut!jay
From: jay@splut.UUCP (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: F8X comments
Message-ID: <253@splut.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 22-Nov-87 13:13:53 EST
Article-I.D.: splut.253
Posted: Sun Nov 22 13:13:53 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Nov-87 03:00:10 EST
References: <50500015@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> <5774@j.cc.purdue.edu> <402@auvax.UUCP>
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Lines: 28
Summary: Not the compiler police, but computer manufacturers.

In article <402@auvax.UUCP>, rwa@auvax.UUCP (Ross Alexander) writes:
> [...]  Dusty decks can be complied with the *old* compiler; [...]

Not necessarily. What happens when the systems supplier, in an example of
how he's being so forward-looking, decides to drop support of the old
compiler?

> Just because someone invents
> a new language, x, and chooses to call it y.2 where y is a previously existing
> language, doesn't make any difference to however many gazillions of lines
> of y code already out there.

It does for portability (after all, FORTRAN is more portable than C ever
thought about being); what am I supposed to do with my million lines of code
when I need to upgrade my ancient, no-longer-supported computer system, and
the only machines available only support the "new and improved" language?

> I mean really, are the compiler police going
> to come and take your fortran {II, IV, -66, -77} compiler & libraries away?
> Get serious.

No, not the compiler police, but just maybe the computer manufacturers.

-- 
Jay Maynard, K5ZC (@WB5BBW)...>splut!< | uucp: uunet!nuchat!splut!jay
Never ascribe to malice that which can | or:  academ!uhnix1!--^
adequately be explained by stupidity.  | GEnie: JAYMAYNARD  CI$: 71036,1603
The opinions herein are shared by none of my cats, much less anyone else.