Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!syntron!jtsv16!uunet!ubvax!ames!lamaster
From: lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Hugh LaMaster)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Fortran 88
Keywords: fortran standards
Message-ID: <17070@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
Date: 25 Oct 88 14:57:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: ames.17070
References: <2060@unmvax.unm.edu> <15851@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <74170@sun.uucp>
Reply-To: lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov.UUCP (Hugh LaMaster)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.
Lines: 31

In article <74170@sun.uucp> khb@sun.UUCP (Keith Bierman - Sun Tactical Engineering) writes:
>
>I propose that opponents of the standard give specifics. Propoents can
>then respond in a reasoned way. Nothing is gained by pointing out that
>certain vendors are out to gut the standard, calling members of the
>committee ComputerScientists, or claims that physicsts make poor
>programmers. 
>
>
>
>

I would like to point out that there are many people out there who accept
MOST of the proposed features of the standard without accepting the 
complete standard.  The specific feature that seems to give the most
people trouble is that of MODULE.  I wonder if everyone could agree
that a subset of the new standard which left out the MODULE stuff
(or anything which breaks the self-contained nature of fortran subroutines)
would be a reasonably "small" and simple to compile language.  Many
fortrans already support pointers and vector array notation.

So, getting back to the original posting: suppose we leave out MODULE.
How many people still object?



-- 
  Hugh LaMaster, m/s 233-9,  UUCP ames!lamaster
  NASA Ames Research Center  ARPA lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov
  Moffett Field, CA 94035     
  Phone:  (415)694-6117