Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:7830 comp.lang.fortran:505
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!nuchat!uhnix1!sugar!ssd
From: ssd@sugar.UUCP (Scott Denham)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Fortran could learn from C
Message-ID: <1517@sugar.UUCP>
Date: 5 Mar 88 08:38:45 GMT
References: <42586@sun.uucp>
Organization: Sugar Land UNIX - Houston, TX
Lines: 37
Keywords: X3J3 Fortran Draft cpp
Summary: Great Idea, lousy standard!

In article <42586@sun.uucp>, dgh%dgh@Sun.COM (David Hough) writes:
>      The Draft should only standardize the modern  free-form
> source format with significant blanks, so that newly written
> Fortran programs will reflect the  progress  in  programming
> language design since Algol-60.
> 
HOGWASH!!  The traditional FORTRAN 'card' image format works fine, is
what thousands upon thousands of 'casual' users of the language have come
to expect, and I'd be willing to bet is STILL the dominant for of FORTRAN
code. I think it's fine that a 'modern' variation is allowed, or even
encouraged, but to take away the old would be pointless and would 
ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE the rejection of the standard. Beleive me, there are
lots of FORTRAN users out there who think the standard should be frozen
at '77 forever. If they wanted a 'modern' language, they'd be using one!
 (discussion of INCLUDE and pre-processor deleted)
 
>      The best course would be to incorporate the  definition
> of  the  C  preprocessor into the Fortran 8x draft.  Despite
> 
Again I disagree. I think pre-processors are great, but let's not burden
an already unwieldy standard document with another whole language, and 
let's not force the compiler vendors to provide one to gain certification
under the 8x standard. What might be nice is to have a standalone 'standard'
for a language front-end preprocessor. Remember that EVERONE will have to
pay for all the bells and whistles that get tacked onto the standard. 
Many of us have no need for such a pre-processor or already have one that
is known and loved - we don't want to pay for another one!! Tom Lahey
has already estimated the effort at converting his 77 compiler to 8x at 
2-3 times the difficulty of writing the original 77 from scratch! Lets
not go for 4; I'm not ready for $1000 micro compilers or $2000/mo mainframe 
ones!
> David Hough
> 
> ARPA: dhough@sun.com
> UUCP: {ucbvax,decvax,decwrl,seismo}!sun!dhough
  
                                                Scott Denham