From: steve on
On May 14, 4:21 pm, A Watcher <stocks...(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
> Ron Shepard wrote:
> > In article <hsjubj$5h...(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
> >  A Watcher <stocks...(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> >> ?
> >>> Now, if you have a class that goes through features in an
> >>> appropriate order, such that you learn the easier to use ones
> >>> first, then maybe it isn't a problem.  But if you pick up a
> >>> Fortran 2003 reference manual and start reading, you will get
> >>> confused faster than from a Fortran 77 reference manual.
>
> >> That's what I was getting at.  If you are learning it on your own F90/95
> >> can be bewildering.  I certainly don't suggest sticking to F77, though.
> >>   Just use it to get started.
>
> > There are many tutorials and textbooks available for f95 that make
> > learning the language much easier.  There are some online that are
> > free and pretty good, at least good enough to make learning the
> > language better than "bewildering".  I'm not aware of any that
> > address the new f2003 features, but I'd expect those to be available
> > soon as compilers begin to support those new features.
>
> > $.02 -Ron Shepard
>
> A well written book aimed at beginners, or at least people who are new
> to fortran, would be good.  Ideally it should teach the core ideas and
> not try to cover everything at once.   The learning curve can be steep
> if you try to learn it all at once.

Metcalf and Reid's "Fortran 90/95 Explained" probably meets
your criteria. This is the older version of the book by Metcalf,
Reid and Cohen. A person familiar with programming in some
other language could read the book in a few hours. A person
new to program may need a day or 2. Either person would be
able to write a Fortran 90/95 program within a hour.

--
steve

From: Jim Xia on

> > Ah, the attribute declaration statements.  These are the most hated
> > features in Fortran for me.  I'm still seeing code like this in
> > claimed F95 programs
>
> > INTEGER x
> > REAL y
> > DOUBLE PRECISION z
> > COMPLEX w
> > ... many lines of declarations
> > PARAMETER (x = 10, y = 1.0)
>
> Maybe it is claimed to be a F95 program because, well, it is
> standard conforming code.
>


I didn't say it was illegal. What I said was the code was so F77-
style that even though it was claimed F95, the coder must be in F77
mind-set. After all, every programmer knows the famous saying "you
can write FORTRAN in any language" although 99% of them have never
seen a real F95 or F2003 code. It's pretty disappointing to see
people still advocate the old "FORTRAN" practices that gave FORTRAN
such a bad name.

Jim
From: steve on
On May 14, 9:32 pm, Jim Xia <jim...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Ah, the attribute declaration statements.  These are the most hated
> > > features in Fortran for me.  I'm still seeing code like this in
> > > claimed F95 programs
>
> > > INTEGER x
> > > REAL y
> > > DOUBLE PRECISION z
> > > COMPLEX w
> > > ... many lines of declarations
> > > PARAMETER (x = 10, y = 1.0)
>
> > Maybe it is claimed to be a F95 program because, well, it is
> > standard conforming code.
>
> I didn't say it was illegal.  What I said was the code was so F77-
> style that even though it was claimed F95, the coder must be in F77
> mind-set.  After all, every programmer knows the famous saying "you
> can write FORTRAN in any language" although 99% of them have never
> seen a real F95 or F2003 code.  It's pretty disappointing to see
> people still advocate the old "FORTRAN" practices that gave FORTRAN
> such a bad name.
>

I did not say that you said it was illegal. I simply noted that
you wrote "I'm still seeing code like this in claimed F95 programs."
I noted that the code you posted is valid F95 so someone that
claimed their code to be a "f95 program" is correct. Whether you
dislike the style is a different matter.

--
steve
From: Terence on
On May 15, 5:45 am, nos...(a)see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:
(snipped)

> You'll have to remember to type everything in upper case and to keep
> your variable names to no more than 7 characters. You'll not be able to
> take advantage of implicit none. ....
(snipped)

I thought about that partial paragraph, and went back to my trusty MS
V3.31 F77 compiler of 1985.
It happily took lower case text anywhere and allowed 6 character
variable names in the main program and 5 character variable names in
any subroutine.

I suupose other versions allowed other variations.
No quibble on the rest.
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Prev: proble in common
Next: GNU f90 read() run time error