From: Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj on 29 Oct 2006 17:37
Brooks Moses wrote:
> Gary Scott wrote:
>> It all comes down to market size. Make the programming masses want to
>> use Fortran, the market size will increase and the prices will come
>> down. This means "improving" the language sufficiently that
>> evangelists can begin to turn the tide of "common knowledge" about the
>> deficiencies of Fortran back.
> And there's also the pretty key point that most of people's complaints
> here about "stunted Fortran" seem to be about things that are handled by
> OS-interface libraries, not by the langauge itself. The C-compatibility
> bits of F2003 are fairly significant for fixing that, I think.
> Beyond that, I think there's a sort of fundamental issue that Fortran's
> big strengths are in number-crunching of various forms -- those are the
> places where it's "much better than" rather than just "as good as" --
> and that's not really exciting to most of the "programming masses",
> because it's not what they do.
> I think Fortran's other big -- and largely unsung -- strength is its
> development model. As modern languages go, it's a little behind the
> state of the art, and will probably continue to be so (and I think this
> is probably a good thing). But it's also backward compatible for three
> decades. Thus, if I'm starting a new project today, and I expect that
> in three decades I'll want to be using large parts of it in stuff that's
> programmed with a relatively modern language three decades hence, I
> think there's really only one clear choice. C++ will be quite old by
> then, C will remain a painfully low-level language, and who knows where
> today's popular things will be. Fortran will still be a decade behind
> being up-to-date, and will be backward compatible.
> - Brooks
Not if some of the modernizers get their way :)
Another thing is that the older Fortrans were fairly small and simple
so that not-a-programming-professionals could get their heads around
it and write pretty good programs. The recent elaborations have indeed
enriched the language. But...
From: Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj on 29 Oct 2006 17:46
Richard Maine wrote:
> Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj <urjlew(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>Anyway, Fortran is now a part of the GCC suite of compilers,
>>referenced as g77; but it supports the F66, F77 and F90 standards.
Wrong attribution. Those are someone elses words.
But, on behalf of the group, thanks for the correction anyway.
> No, g77 does not suport f90. It supports a few isolated f90 features,
> but few of the major ones. It makes no pretext of being an f90 compiler.
> You are probably confusing g77 and gfortran. GFortran is part of the GCC
> suite. It does support f90/f95, as well as f77.... and sort of f66,
> though I'm not sure that many compilers today actually support all of
> f66. But GFortran is not the same thing as g77. You are probably
> confusing them because g77 used to be part of the GCC suite, whereas
> GFortan now is. This does not mean that they are the same compiler -
> they are completely different. (And then there is g95, which is also a
> free f95 and earlier compiler, but not part of GCC).
From: AeroSpace Ed on 29 Oct 2006 18:14
This post is confusing, and later on you chide Richard for a wrong
attribution. It looks like that's because this post is a mutation of
something. I quite figure out who's other post that you've quoted.
On top of that I'm no longer sure what or who is complaining that Fortran
development tools are too expensive. I use Linux. My compiler, linker,
build system, graphic libraries, widget sets are all "free". So I just
don't understand who's complaining about what.
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj wrote:
> Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj wrote:
>> AeroSpace Ed wrote:
>>> How can you say this with so many "free" Fortran compilers available??
>>> Not only is there "g77", "gfortran" and "g95", but Intel's and Sun's
>>> compilers are now free (with a few restrictions..)
>>> I vehemently disagree with your post. Now, more than ever is Fortran
>>> accessable to just about anyone, with a low (sometimes, zero)
>> Please tell me more, in some detail.
>> I have a Pentium 3 computer running Windows 98 and am setting up a
>> replacement 1.6GHz Pentium 4 with Windows XP.
>> What low cost pieces of software do I need in order to write and
>> run Fortran programs that will draw graphs on my screen & printer
>> on these two systems.
>> My email address is good.
>> Advance thanks
> Thank yous to:
> - Roger Ivie <rivie(a)ridgenet.net>:
> Ah. Well, if it's windows you're using, you should look into
> Watcom. See http://www.openwatcom.org/ .
> - mrr(a)pilt.reistad.priv.no (Morten Reistad):
> I don't know what graphics you need; these Windows API's
> tend to be very C-based.
> Anyway, Fortran is now a part of the GCC suite of compilers,
> referenced as g77; but it supports the F66, F77 and F90 standards.
> I would assume cygwin can support fortran based programs now;
> and cygwin can be downloaded and run on most windows-based
> machines under gnu terms.
> - Brian.Inglis(a)SystematicSW.ab.ca :
> gnuplot / plotlib, scilab / plotlib, dislin, various others.
> Mingw supports g77 and g95, probably 4.x series.
> Cygwin supports g77 3.4 and g95 ?.?.
> DJGPP supports the 4.x series of compilers.
> G95 ports may not be available as a standard package in the
> distribution, in which case you download then issue the standard build
> commands: cd src ; tar xvf ... ; ./configure ; make all install.
> You first have to download and install the standard autotools, shell,
> utilities, development tools to be able to do this. These packages are
> normally well documented in the distribution.
> But my request is with malice aforethought. :)
> Note my system(s) Microsoft Windows. (on, of course, Intel 86 type
> cpus.) , and I asked for all the pieces of software needed.
> That turns out to be a bunch more that just a compiler.:
> - Compiler running on Windos OS(es)
> - Linker/binder/loader for OS(es) and particular object formats
> - Librarian
> - Execution libraries
> - Graphics libraries (compatible with above)
> and with graphics card being used.
> - Printer driving software.
> Supposedly $$$ would solve the problems handily.
> /BAH mentioned $50K.
> So come one, come all. I'm waiting for your suggestions
> of software with approximate prices.
> Disk space and central memory shouldn't be a problem
> I have .75Gb or 1.25Gb central memory and ~30Gb of free
> disk space on the two machines.
> I'm willing to bet that the suggestions will be 1st
> instal Linux, then ...
> ..Oh the $$$ are coming out of my SS Dole. No deep
> pockets govt. of commercial funding.
From: Greg Lindahl on 29 Oct 2006 21:17
In article <45452F5A.6050503(a)bellsouth.net>,
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj <urjlew(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Wrong attribution. Those are someone elses words.
>But, on behalf of the group, thanks for the correction anyway.
It's worth pointing out that your unusual quoting was the cause.
Please follow the usual Usenet method of quoting.
From: Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj on 29 Oct 2006 22:46
Greg Lindahl wrote:
> In article <45452F5A.6050503(a)bellsouth.net>,
> Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj <urjlew(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>Wrong attribution. Those are someone elses words.
>>But, on behalf of the group, thanks for the correction anyway.
> It's worth pointing out that your unusual quoting was the cause.
> Please follow the usual Usenet method of quoting.
> -- greg
Mea Culpa. I was trying to combine the answers from three
different posters, thank them all at one time and then add
my new comments.
I don't know that there is a 'usual method' for quoting
in that situation.