Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!agate!stew.ssl.berkeley.edu!link
From: link@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (Richard Link)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Fortran 88
Keywords: fortran standards
Message-ID: <15744@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 20 Oct 88 07:47:43 GMT
References: <2045@unmvax.unm.edu> <657@convex.UUCP> <660@convex.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: comp.lang.fortran
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 41

In article <660@convex.UUCP> metzger@mozart.UUCP (Bob Metzger) writes:
>
>For example, this assertion that the "Gang of 5" that wrote the 
>current draft are "users".   You know as well as I that they are mostly,
>like yourself, actually Ph.D. computer scientists.  I think it is safe
>to assert that if there is any class of programmers who are not typical
>FORTRAN users, it is Ph.D. computer scientists.   Engineers and
>physical scientists are the real FORTRAN users.  

I agree !!!!!

*MY* biggest problem with F88 is that it looks like FORTRAN was
hijacked by a bunch of academic Pascal/C advocates who insist on
turning it into an all-purpose language, instead of the efficient
number cruncher it was designed to be.

I get the impression that the committee members did not learn FORTRAN
as their first language. Hence, the bias towards incorporating
"modern", but totally unnecessary, constructs into the draft standard.
We've already got Pascal, Modula-2, Ada, and C. There is no need to
re-invent these languages.

My background is in the development of complex numerical models for the
analysis and interpretation of space physics data. I taught FORTRAN for
5 years, and ALGOL (!) for 2. If you can give me a better number cruncher,
then I'm all in favor. However, I see little to recommend in the new
draft standard.

In our laboratory, we select the best language available for the job at
hand. Our satellite control functions are coded in C, but the scientific
analysis programs are in FORTRAN.

As it stands, I think that the proposed draft standard will meet with the
same success as ALGOL-68 and PL/1.

To ANSI committee members: Go think about it for a while, and come back
when you have a language called FORTRAN.

Dr. Richard Link
Space Sciences Laboratory
University of California, Berkeley
link@ssl.berkeley.edu