Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!syntron!jtsv16!uunet!tank!ncar!ames!oliveb!sun!chiba!khb
From: khb%chiba@Sun.COM (Keith Bierman - Sun Tactical Engineering)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: FORTRAN 88
Message-ID: <74819@sun.uucp>
Date: 26 Oct 88 21:04:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: sun.74819
References: <669@convex.UUCP> <5826@vdsvax.steinmetz.ge.com> <673@convex.UUCP> <2910@sugar.uu.net>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Reply-To: khb@sun.UUCP (Keith Bierman - Sun Tactical Engineering)
Distribution: comp.lang.fortran
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 17

In article <2910@sugar.uu.net> ssd@sugar.uu.net (Scott Denham) writes:

> >IBM did distribute a packet of info on the standard, I belive to
every 
>.............This information, though, was TOTALY negative
>towards the standard and did not, IMHO, present a balanced view of
>the two sides of the argument.  
>

This is not only IYHO. This is exactly why many have characterized the
x3j3 public responses as being "vendor biased". The information
presented to the public was not "high quality".

(* sigh *) 

Keith H. Bierman
It's Not My Fault ---- I Voted for Bill & Opus