From: Mike Prager on
>> >Gino can do that and is one of the easiest to program.
>>
>> Yes. �It's also US $3600!
>
>When only the best will do :). Upgrades are much more reasonable (so
>there's good news if you become hooked). And they work very hard to
>add the most requested features and fix bugs. I've gotten virtually
>every feature I ever asked for save for a few, e.g. 1) improved RTF
>editor (it uses the basic one MS distributes for the less capable
>editors like MS Outlook), 2) improved WEB support (I'd like to program
>entirely in GINO and have them output web-compatible streams (html,
>svg, png)...although they've recently added Flash support, so maybe
>there's hope), two built in tools: a font editor (mainframe package
>came with this) and a help editor (cross platform)

Yes, GINO is very good -- I used it as a NOAA employee -- but now I'm
retired, and as a part-timer, I can't afford it unless I get a
consulting job that specifically needs its capabilities (MORE than
just drag and drop) & has a budget to match.
From: Walt Brainerd on
Ron Shepard wrote:

>
.. . .
>
> No, I was talking about the decade long stall in the 80's, where the
> standards committee seemingly tried to kill the language by dragging its
> feet. One of the things that was urgently needed in the 80's,
> especially with the wide range of hardware in use at the time, was a
> standard preprocessor. That is when most of the fortran compilers
> starting using the C preprocessor to fill this gap in functionality.
>
.. . .
Well, there were at least as many people on the committee
who were "pulling" as were "dragging", but they just barely
won the day.

And you are certainly correct that this conflict resulted in
a long delay that caused lots of problems.
>
> $.02 -Ron Shepard

Walt Brainerd