Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!hplabs!hpda!hpcuhb!hpcllla!hpclisp!hpclcdb!cdb
From: cdb@hpclcdb.HP.COM (Carl Burch)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Re: FORTRAN horrors (character init)
Message-ID: <6690016@hpclcdb.HP.COM>
Date: 25 Apr 88 05:21:13 GMT
References: <563@a.UUCP>
Organization: HP ITG/ISO Computer Language Lab
Lines: 52

> > >so the compiler is going to be substantially bigger just from that effect
> > >alone (not counting the increase in size due to more language features).
> 
> Why does a larger run-time library cause the compiler to be bigger?  Surely
> 
> > features, will execute slower than before (for instance, the array stuff
> > vs. DO loops).
> >
> The array manipulation stuff in Fortran 8x should be UNIFORMLY faster than
> the equivalent DO loops.  

It looks like Mr. Giles is assuming shared libraries and sophisticated
optimizing compilers; Bob and Bill seem to be worrying about PC-DOS* as it 
exists today (relatively dumb compilers and libraries on a small address space 
machine).  I suspect that Fortran 8x is targetted above PC-DOS, but should
work on more modern architectures.  For one thing, Leahy (among others) says
that it is just bearly possible to do the industry standard extensions to
full FORTRAN 77 on PC-DOS - being concerned about doing F8x on it is an
argument for nothing more than a few small extensions to F77.  While some
people favor that, I feel that being constrained by an architecture on its
last legs (see OS/2 P.R. from a couple companies that shall go nameless)
would be seriously irresponsible on the part of X3J3.  The design rules
(largely unwritten - F8x started before rationale documents were part of the
standards process) that seem to be used :

   1) Strict superset of the official F77 standard.

   2) Assume reasonably modern compiler technology, but not state-of-the-art 
      1988.  Explicitly not limited to that previously used in Fortran (e.g., 
      procedure overloading isn't in anyone's Fortran but is no novelty in 
      compiler labs).

   3) Assume reasonably modern architecture in terms of runtime organization
      (i.e., stack/heap available) and address space.  In the latter case,
      this is analogous to F77 - putting it on one of the early-60's machines
      I've heard of (~4k bytes total memory) would have been all but impossible.
      The stack/heap combination is required for practically all other
      languages - the flat world, sorry, memory model of FORTRAN prior to
      F8x is curious and fading away on even many Fortrans (Bell F77, 
      HP Anything, others that prize inter-language calling compatibility).

Both sides of this notes string seem to be arguing outside those lines, in 
opposite directions.  Would you rather constrain the debate, or maybe both
sides would prefer just to turn on me? :-) 

Sorry to interrupt a good argument -
						Carl Burch
						HP Fortran
 
 * PC-DOS is presumably a trademark of someone I'd prefer not to be sued by.

 H-P has no idea what I'm typing here - some people say I don't, either.