Path: utzoo!dptcdc!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!novavax!hcx1!hcx2!bill
From: bill@hcx2.SSD.HARRIS.COM
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Responses to M. Shapiro & K. Bierma
Message-ID: <44400035@hcx2>
Date: 17 Apr 89 16:18:00 GMT
References: <24091@beta.lanl.gov>
Lines: 39
Nf-ID: #R:beta.lanl.gov:24091:hcx2:44400035:000:2149
Nf-From: hcx2.SSD.HARRIS.COM!bill    Apr 17 12:18:00 1989


Having been present at the X3J3 meetings over the past year when most of
the "WG5 vs. U.S." debate was going on, I will strongly differ with Keith
Bierman on what the major topic was.  It was NOT, repeat NOT, pointers!
The _form_ of pointer was hotly debated, yes.  But the major source of
contention was not what to ADD, it was what to DELETE from FORTRAN/8x.

I and others on the committee have been trying to pare down the language to
reduce its cost to users.  Much of the public comment complained about the
size and/or complexity of FORTRAN/8x, and at least some of us think X3J3
should respond intelligently to those complaints.  (Let's debate that some
other time.)  However, WG5 members ABSOLUTELY REFUSED to give up anything
of consequence.  (In fact, several WG5 members literally threatened X3J3
with a NO vote based on a single issue: removing MODULE/USE.)  Instead,
they insisted on adding (stream I/O, pointers, a bit data type).  Mostly,
they got everything they wanted.

I think one international standard for FORTRAN is a wonderful idea, but
saying so doesn't make it possible.  Where is it written that all FORTRAN
users want the same things from FORTRAN?  It has become evident to me that
there are several, very vocal, groups of users, both in the U.S. and in
other countries, who have radically different views on what FORTRAN should
be.  It also appears to me that the majority of American users fall into a
different group than the majority of, say, European users.  That, I
believe, is the fundamental reason for the present difficulties.

No matter what happens, some group(s) of FORTRAN users are going to be
dissatisfied.  But I find it very strange that an American standard
(remember, the A in ANSI stands for American) should dissatisfy the
majority of American users.  I also find disturbing the fact that many
users from U.S. Government labs and departments (including the U.S. Army)
expressed strong disapproval of this standard, yet ANSI seems intent on
adopting it.

Bill Leonard
Harris Computer Systems Division
2101 W. Cypress Creek Road
Fort Lauderdale, FL  33309
bill@ssd.harris.com or hcx1!bill@uunet.uu.net