Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!sun!chiba!khb
From: khb%chiba@Sun.COM (Keith Bierman - Sun Tactical Engineering)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Why have FORTRAN 8x at all?
Keywords: FORTRAN
Message-ID: <75769@sun.uucp>
Date: 2 Nov 88 10:33:52 GMT
References: <388@ubbpc.UUCP> <16187@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <391@ubbpc.UUCP>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Reply-To: khb@sun.UUCP (Keith Bierman - Sun Tactical Engineering)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 67

In article <391@ubbpc.UUCP> wgh@ubbpc.UUCP (William G. Hutchison) writes:
>In article <16187@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, link@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu (Richard Link) writes:
>
> Here is the historical paradigm I am looking at:
>  Algol-60 was a breakthough, excellent language; widely used as a publication
>language and used in Europe as a practical language.  So a committee decided
>to "improve" Algol-60 to Algol-68.  You may recall the result: Algol-68 was
>"improved" to the point of being unusable.  Very few implementations ever were
>finished: hardly anybody ever managed to get through the language spec.
> IBM decided to "improve" FORTRAN and COBOL: they produced PL/I: another
>semi-usable mess.

x3j3 was well aware of these previous diasters. This is why it
insisted that f8x (now, by fiat of wg5, f88) accept all existing f77
compliant code. This was not true of algol-68. PL/1 was compatible
with no previous (or future) language. Neither is a good model for
understanding f88.

> From the comments IN THIS GROUP, I conclude that FORTRAN 8x is evolving into
>another committee-designed mess, which I doubt sincerely will serve anybody
>well.  

There is a very natural tendency for posters to come from the ranks of
the unhappy..this colors the impression.. If I had not been using
fortran, and had not read metcalf and reid's book AND the proposed
standard (and to be fair, several years of committee meetings) I would
not feel competant to pass judgement on the standard.

> So I ask again, why have FORTRAN 8x at all? (not facetious!).

Because the cost of developing scientific code is much too high.
Because systems evolve or die. Because we know there are better
solutions. Because a large number of people have demanded change.
Because lack of a new standard breeds ever more complex vendor extensions.

> As for your point about preserving your investment in FORTRAN-66 or
>FORTRAN-77, I suggest that you keep on programming in FORTRAN-66 or 
>FORTRAN-77!

The point is how to preserve the investment, but not continue to pay
the price of using a 1960's language (with a couple of 1970's minor
mods). 

Committees may not create perfect standards, but there is no
alternative. With the possible exceptions of C and APL, no language
cooked up by a single individual or tiny team has proven useful to a
wide audiance (I include pascal (which mututated radically on its way
to even limited sucess as a commercial language, and forth which
continues to serve a very limited audiance) (many will argue that APL
has not been an exception either). 

Personally I think x3j3 was faced with a nearly insoluable problem.
How to (a) plan for orderly evolution (b) provide an relatively smooth
path for upgrading to a modern language (c) provide all the features
needed by a very diverse user community.

Anyone who can't find fault with the standard simply isn't trying hard
enough. 

The question is: which (if any) objections/complaints were not aired
                 years ago? 

x3j3 may not have dealt with them as everyone might have liked; but
dealt with them they did. So when are we gonna call it wrap, do it;
and then start discussing the next standard ?

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