Xref: utzoo comp.lang.fortran:1005 comp.sys.ibm.pc:18532
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!ucbvax!agate!stew.ssl.berkeley.edu!link
From: link@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (Richard Link)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: F77 Compilers for MS-DOS PC's
Keywords: ms-dos fortran f77
Message-ID: <13767@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 31 Aug 88 03:39:49 GMT
References: <184@limbic.UUCP> <5015@watdcsu.waterloo.edu>
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: na
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 20

In article <5015@watdcsu.waterloo.edu> andytoy@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (Andy Toy, Applications Support Group) writes:
>Check out WATFOR-77 from WATCOM, 415 Phillip Street, Waterloo, Ontario,
>Canada N2L 3X2 (519) 886-3700  Telex 06-955458.
>


I first learned to program using WATFOR/WATFIV on an IBM 360 (yes I'm that
old). It is an excellent teaching compiler since it's error messages are
very good (and also error trapping).

Howver, because of all the built-in error checking, it produced
slooooooooooooooooow executables. Typically, I would debug a program
using WATFOR, and then run using IBM H-Extended, which ran about
20 times faster.

How does the MS-DOS version compare to Microsoft Fortran in compile and
run times? How good is the error checking in the PC version?

...Rick Link
link@ssl.berkeley.edu