Path: utzoo!dptcdc!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!skipper!maine From: maine@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: Responses to M. Shapiro & K. Bierma Message-ID: Date: 18 Apr 89 15:29:15 GMT References: <24091@beta.lanl.gov> <44400035@hcx2> Sender: news@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal. Lines: 73 In-reply-to: bill@hcx2.SSD.HARRIS.COM's message of 17 Apr 89 16:18:00 GMT In article <44400035@hcx2> bill@hcx2.SSD.HARRIS.COM writes: > 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. I strongly agree with the statement that different users want very different things out of Fortran. That is what drives the language to become "large" enough to encompass many of these wants/needs. I strongly disagree that this is reason to segregate Fortran into separate languages or whatever. This would defeat much of the purpose of standardization. Standards not only help portability of codes between machines; they also help portability of code between applications and thus integration of applications. I have programmed in Fortran as my primary language (I do mostly numerical engineering applications) for nearly 20 years. It is still my preferred language for engineering work. But over the last 5 years or so, the language has seemed increasingly inadequate for many of the applications that arise. I've been driven to work in Pascal and c (and starting to be pushed into Ada). I really want to get back to doing most of my work in a single language. This has a lot of very concrete advantages. I'll avoid elaborating my list of what ought to be in that language except to say that Fortran 8x looks like a lot better candidate than any of the others. I'll place myself in the camp that wants, more than any specific feature, a Fortran that is broad enough to meet all (well, ok, how about most?) of the needs within the context of a single integrated language. I'm perfectly willing to give up a modest amount of performance if that's what it takes; it would save a lot more of my time than it would cost of the computer's and I happen to think my time is more important (biased of me, I'm sure). Yes, I am aware that there are people that disagree with these priorities, sometimes vehemently. There was a time when the costs of a language large enough to encompass all these needs was unacceptably large. I believe that time has past. I don't doubt that it will take a lot of work to make a good Fortran 8x compiler. But I also don't doubt that it can be done. And I also don't doubt that it will be worth the work. We obnoxious (oops, I was hoping you wouldn't guess that :-)) users spend a lot more time using the compiler than it takes to develop it. I bet I could name (but I won't) some vendors that will make good Fortran 8x compilers, and I bet they will sell plenty of them. > of consequence. (In fact, several WG5 members literally threatened X3J3 > with a NO vote based on a single issue: removing MODULE/USE.) Instead, I guess it illustrates some of those differences between different users. Module/use is high on my list of important features. Not the absolute top (which is probably reserved for data structures), but its up there. > 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 No question that many such users have expressed strong disapproval - and I'm not going to suggest that they are uninformed or any other such questionable generalization. I'm sure many of them have good reasons for their disapproval. But I'm also sure there are users in U.S. government labs that strongly approve of the standard (or at least enough of it that they are willing to accept the rest as a necessary compromise to get something out). I'm very sure of this because I am one such user. (Insert standard disclaimer about speaking only for myself). Richard Maine maine@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov