Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ukma!uflorida!novavax!hcx1!hcx2!bill
From: bill@hcx2.SSD.HARRIS.COM
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Report on WG5 meeting in Paris
Message-ID: <44400024@hcx2>
Date: 3 Oct 88 13:00:00 GMT
References: <838@cernvax.UUCP>
Lines: 70
Nf-ID: #R:cernvax.UUCP:838:hcx2:44400024:000:4065
Nf-From: hcx2.SSD.HARRIS.COM!bill    Oct  3 09:00:00 1988


Well, I found several items from the WG5 meeting surprising, to say
the least.  For instance, I am amazed that so many people felt that
demonstrating a lexer and parser for FORTRAN/8x proves that a compiler
can be developed in "a timely manner"!!!  This is ridiculous!  We
developed an Ada lexer/parser in about two weeks; it took another 6
man-years or so to develop a working, usable compiler.  Even if this
"demonstrator model" included a semantics checker, it still leaves out
the hardest part: code generation.

Also surprising was the timetable that WG5 adopted.  This may work for
an ISO standard, but it is hopelessly unrealistic for an ANSI
standard.  We (X3J3) have not finished processing the comments from
the _last_ public review; any changes we adopt, if substantive (and
those proposed by WG5 certainly are substantive), must be submitted to
a second public review.  That requires at least a one-meeting delay,
for it requires a letter ballot from X3J3 members.  Even if all
changes were adopted in Boston in November and a letter ballot
initiated, it would be February before the results can be acted upon.
There would then be another meeting's delay for the public review.
Then those comments have to be answered.  In short, there is no hope
of an ANSI standard by February.

Personally, I think it is hopeless to expect the ISO and ANSI
standards to be one and the same now.  WG5 is obviously not willing to
significantly reduce the language.  The comments from U.S. users are
clearly overwhelmingly opposed to FORTRAN/8x as it now stands, and
they will continue to be so opposed until the language is
significantly reduced.  If X3J3 ignores those comments, and attempts
to pass an ANSI standard similar to what WG5 wants, we will have the
same situation as COBOL had in '85.  There will doubtless be lawsuits,
which will serve to delay the standard another 5 years or so.

WG5 can remind X3J3 that we are supposed to be developing an international
standard until the cows come home, but that won't change the fact that
X3J3 must operate under ANSI rules, and the result is first an
ANSI standard, not an ISO standard.  That means that we can ignore
the overwhelming U.S. negative comments only to our peril.

Where is it written that everyone must be able to agree on one
language?  Yes, it would be nice if they could, but it is obvious to
me that they cannot.  The European users, it appears at least, want
completely different things from FORTRAN than the U.S. users want.
One language will never satisfy them all.  I think, however, that the
international user community should consider the consequences of their
actions, even assuming they are successful in achieving the standard
they want.  First, why is it important to them that the ANSI standard
be identical to the ISO?  I strongly suspect that it is because most
of the vendors are based in the U.S., and they will produce FORTRAN/8x
processors only at the behest of the U.S. Government.  That means it
must be an ANSI standard and a FIPS (Federal Information Processing
Standard).  Usually, ANSI standards become FIPS virtually
automatically.

But if U.S. users don't like that language, THEY WON'T USE IT!  They
will find some reason to get an exception (if necessary) from the
government.  (Actually, with Ada being mandated by the DoD, there will
be very little incentive for government contractors to use FORTRAN
anyway.)  Those users who don't have to worry about the government
will just use something else, probably FORTRAN/77.  That will
significantly diminish the impetus for vendors to produce quality
implementations and provide adequate support.  For most vendors, the
U.S. market is by far the largest economically, so that is the one
they will serve first.  If FORTRAN/8x processors can't pay for
themselves in sales, they just won't exist.

Everyone should remember that, just as vendors cannot unconditionally
dictate to users, neither can users unconditionally dictate to
vendors.  At some point, the economics will take over.  To believe
otherwise is simple folly.