Xref: utzoo comp.lang.fortran:1036 comp.sys.ibm.pc:18744
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdcad!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!uccba!uceng!rogden
From: rogden@uceng.UC.EDU (robert ogden)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: F77 Compilers for MS-DOS PC's
Summary: Ryan-McFarland and Lahey FORTRAN yes! Microsoft FORTRAN no.
Keywords: ms-dos fortran f77
Message-ID: <197@uceng.UC.EDU>
Date: 5 Sep 88 02:35:36 GMT
References: <184@limbic.UUCP> <102@simsdevl.UUCP> <13633@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <12329@ncoast.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Univ. of Cincinnati, College of Engg.
Lines: 26

The Dept. of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mech. at the University of
Cincinnati has been using RMFORT ver 2.0 RYAN MCFARLAND FORTRAN for ~ 3 years.
Mostly undergraduates in the PC LAB. No problems to speak of, a good
solid FORTRAN 77 compiler. However, this version is really slooooow to 
compile. The Lahey  ver 2.20 compiler is as good and compiles very
fast. We are just now going to purchase Lahey v3.0 for the PC LAB. Even though
both compilers have 80x87 emulation, it is not useful to have the 80x86
do all the work. A numerically intensive benchmark of ours shows:

IBM ps/2 model 80 16Mhz, 57.78 secs, Lahey
IBM ps/2 model 50,      161.00 secs, Lahey
CLONE 10Mhz,            222.20 secs, RMFORT
uVAX II w/FPA,           46.40 secs

With both, FORTRAN code compatibility with FORTRAN 77 is good.
We ship files around to several machines w/o problems and avoid using 
VAX extensions for this reason. Several students do initial work with
these compilers and later send the source to VAX, CRAY, Perkin-Elmer
(now Concurrent Computer), Definicon co-processors (Silicon Valley
Software Compiler).
  
I have, *ONCE* , used Microsoft FORTRAN ver 3.x . It was terrible.
I still have nightmares. It was a FORTRAN program that had run on
VAX and PR1ME computers. 

Hope this helps. Rob Ogden, rogden@uceng.uc.edu  129.137.33.1