Xref: utzoo comp.lang.fortran:997 comp.sys.ibm.pc:18393
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!ncar!gatech!mcdchg!simsdevl!dandc
From: dandc@simsdevl.UUCP (Dan DeClerck)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: F77 Compilers for MS-DOS PC's
Keywords: ms-dos fortran f77
Message-ID: <102@simsdevl.UUCP>
Date: 25 Aug 88 23:08:23 GMT
References: <184@limbic.UUCP>
Reply-To: dandc@simsdevl.UUCP (Dan DeClerck)
Distribution: na
Organization: Motorola, Schaumburg, IL
Lines: 24

In article <184@limbic.UUCP> gil@limbic.UUCP (Gil Kloepfer Jr.) writes:
>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
>if possible, that is well-supported (ie. the company will be in business
>next month), performs well, etc.  All these criteria, as well as any others
>which you may find helpful to mention, should be considered.
>
>Please email *all* followup responses directly to me, and I will post a
>summary to the net in about 2 weeks.  Thanks to all in advance for your
>assistance.
>

I've used Digital Research's F77 compiler and linker package for a college project about a year ago.
I found that it was absolutely horrible. Not only was the package extremely slow
it had reserved words (according to standard it cannot). It masked some linkage
errors so that you you hadn't any idea of the problem (like passing aguments to subroutines
that had differing definitions of lengths would show up as a "FIXUP ERROR" with
nothing pointing to the offending routines or variables). I hear from friends that 
Lahey's and the IBM F77 compiler are good, but don't quote me...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan DeClerck       or dandc@mcdchg!simsdevl