Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cwjcc!gatech!uflorida!haven!mimsy!oddjob!uxc!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!mcdonald
From: mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: F77 Compilers for MS-DOS PC's
Message-ID: <50500070@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 26 Aug 88 13:32:00 GMT
References: <184@limbic.UUCP>
Lines: 31
Nf-ID: #R:limbic.UUCP:184:uxe.cso.uiuc.edu:50500070:000:1254
Nf-From: uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!mcdonald    Aug 26 08:32:00 1988


>>One company I do work for is looking for a F77 compiler for a PC / PC clone.
>>I would appreciate any suggestions from the net as to compilers they have
>>used and liked, or compilers to avoid.
>>
>>Specifically, we are looking for a compiler which supports VMS extensions
>>


>I bought Microsoft 3.20 and upgraded to 3.31. Both stink. Neither versions
>are ANSI F77. 3.31 is a subset of F77, and has CHARACTER variables, although

True, Microsoft Fortran 3.31 stinks. However, the current version, 4.1
is full ANSI F77 and is quite OK. Luckily they have not put all the
highly nonstandard DEC extensions in it. There are some loosening
up of the more restrictive ANSI clauses, however (but not the
obscene BLOCK DATA requirement).

>I cannot believe I am saying the following: if you want to program a PC,
>use C!

Also true. However, if you have the bucks, buy both Microsoft Fortran 
and C. You can call one from the other with little pain. And then 
you can call many use Microsoft C functions from Fortran.
Including graphics.

I must say that I have programmed many computers, from the 1620 to
the Illiac IV, and with this combo the IBM PC is the most hassle
free of all. It sure beats the VAX/VMS - no sickening record formats.

Doug McDonald