Xref: utzoo comp.arch:4303 comp.misc:2253
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bu-cs!bzs
From: bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.misc
Subject: Re: Fortran summary (was Re: FORTRAN Horror)
Message-ID: <21402@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Date: 9 Apr 88 16:06:17 GMT
References: : <2730@saturn.ucsc.edu>
Organization: Boston U. Comp. Sci.
Lines: 28
In-reply-to: haynes@ucscc.UCSC.EDU's message of 9 Apr 88 07:02:51 GMT



>1.  Fortran is not going to go away
>
>2.  Certain features of the language (e.g. COMMON and EQUIVALENCE)
>assume a linear random access memory and thus make it tough on
>architectures that would like to treat memory in a more structured
>way (e.g. descriptors a la Burroughs).
>
>3. Any others?

3. The best reason to use Fortran is because you are working in an
environment where Fortran is the best supported language for the job
at hand (eg. the only language with a vectorizer, specific subroutine
libraries you need where the data objects and/or programming interface
are already defined for you in terms of Fortran and reworking that in
terms of another language would mostly be an academic exercise of little
benefit.)

4. The worst reason to use Fortran is because it's the only language
you know, unless the problem is relatively trivial (which is all such
a person should be allowed to solve in a professional environment,
something that fits the model INPUT->TRANSFORM->OUTPUT where
transformation is arithmetic rather than structure or control
oriented.) This doesn't mean a person with a broad grasp of the tools
won't use Fortran, but hopefully their decision won't be based on lack
of choice due to ignorance.

	-Barry Shein, Boston University