Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!microsoft!bobal
From: bobal@microsoft.UUCP (Bob Allison)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Re: FORTRAN horrors (character init)
Message-ID: <1417@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 27 Apr 88 16:28:57 GMT
References: <563@a.UUCP> <6690016@hpclcdb.HP.COM>
Reply-To: bobal@microsoft, or {uunet,sun}!microsoft!bobal
Organization: me
Lines: 48

In article <6690016@hpclcdb.HP.COM> cdb@hpclcdb.HP.COM (Carl Burch) writes:
>
>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
>
Well, what I heard that Lahey said was that it is barely possible for
a small company to start-up a FORTRAN 77 compiler: i.e. the investment 
and risk are both dangerously high.  He felt that the cost and risk would
be much higher for 8X and was concerned that only the big guys would get in
on it.  And I can hardly believe that DOS will not be around for at least
a few more years. 

>  [well-considered description of the de-facto rationale behind 8X]
>
>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
Well, I like to think that this is all pretty friendly and anyone who
wants to will jump right in without fear of anybody getting nasty.  
Anyway, I know Carl personally, and I would never give such a personable
guy a hard time publicly.

Carl has made the (valid) point that we are talking at cross-purposes,
but that is probably because I am not trying to attack specific features
in this particular series of comments.  My comments are based
somewhat on the sad conclusion that just as people are beginning
to be able to do some serious scientific programming in FORTRAN 
(or, at least some fast prototyping and debugging) on 
their PC's the door is going to be slammed in their faces with a new
set of unstable, inefficient compilers which won't even work until they
shell out a lot of bucks for new hardware and a new OS.  And I personally
believe we can come up with a very satisfactory new standard (with
more than "a few small extensions") without having to go that far.

Bob Allison