Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!uwmcsd1!ig!agate!eos!eugene
From: eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: fortran 8x
Keywords: fortran 8x compiler
Message-ID: <1228@eos.UUCP>
Date: 7 Aug 88 21:32:39 GMT
References: <133@garfield.RDL.COM> <20931@beta.lanl.gov>
Reply-To: eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Calif.
Lines: 32

In article <20931@beta.lanl.gov> dd@beta.lanl.gov (Dan Davison) writes:
>As I said in my comments to the committee, nice language, too bad
>it's not Fortran.
>"I think, therefore I am confused"

Great closing line!

Anyways, Dan's comment makes we want to ask, "Well, what is Fortran?"
An answer like "The standard" isn't want people want to here.  Perhap
compiler writers are doing the wrong thing?  Perhaps we Should freeze
F66 and develop new languages (F8X).

Sorry, you have to keep your only IBM360 (using Level 2 OPT on the H
compiler) it's the only thing running F66.... [I realize LANL
does most major computing on Crays with very 360s.]

We have to resolve this dusty deck problem.  If the problem is
pure compatibility, then we can never win.  Not if users want performance
increases, reliability increases, etc.  I don't see users offering
what they are willing to compromise.  Should they prioritize what
they are willing to give up in order to get added features they want?

What is about Fortran which makes it what it is?  What's Fortran-like?

Don't ask me, I'm confused, too.
Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."