Prev: Fortran 77 parser
Next: The structure contains one or more misaligned fields
From: Terence on 6 Apr 2008 18:49
On Apr 5, 2:15 am, "James Van Buskirk" <not_va...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
....
> The obvious problem is the size of the language.  It got bigger from
> f77 to f90, from f90 to f95, and from f95 to f03.  The increase in
> size from f90 to f95 is often underestimated by those who haven't
> tried to make f95 compilers work on specification expressions.

Yup!
I stick with F77. It works. It does the job. I don't get to see or
hear of any bugs.

Like the early AT days, the first version of eevrything was GREAT;
then the acountants pushed the various companies to produce new
products for more money. So they 'improved' the first version, and
sucessively. You all see what happened.
All because memory got cheaper...
From: Fei Liu on 7 Apr 2008 09:33
Richard Maine wrote:
> Fei Liu <fei.liu(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 3) Many important CS concepts such as database, networking, operating
>> system simply has no relevance with Fortran...
>
> I won't comment on most of the posting. It has other things I disagree
> with, but I won't comment on them. The above, however... perhaps there
> is a problem with the English in that I don't know precisely what "has
> no relevance with" is intended to mean. But for at least some obvious
> interpretation, it is false - trivially provably so, not just a matter
> of opinion.
>
> I personally have done quite a lot of database, networking, and
> operating system interface from Fortran. I also know many other people
> who have. So it is simply not true that they "has no relevance with
> Fortran".

Your opinion and your experience are just yours and I won't argue about
them. What we are talking about is no schools nowadays teach these CS
concepts with the help of Fortran.

Fei
From: Richard Maine on 7 Apr 2008 11:37
Fei Liu <fei.liu(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Fei Liu <fei.liu(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 3) Many important CS concepts such as database, networking, operating
> >> system simply has no relevance with Fortran...
> >
> What we are talking about is no schools nowadays teach these CS
> concepts with the help of Fortran.

True (the later quote above). That is not particularly the same thing as
"having no relevance". If that's what you meant, I now see why I
misunderstood your intended meaning from the original statement.

--
Richard Maine | Good judgement comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement.
domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
From: Beliavsky on 7 Apr 2008 16:29
On Apr 4, 2:42 pm, Fei Liu <fei....(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> The problem with lack ofFortranteaching in CS is many-folds imo
>
> 1) It's not usually a desired skill to locate a job after graduation;

> 2) Difficulty of usingFortranto implement data structures and
> algorithms.

That's arguable for Fortran 90 onwards, which did have pointers and
dynamic memory allocation. With the Fortran TR extending the
functionality of allocatable arrays, it's even less true.

> Even simpler things such as binary trees or hash tables do
> not have a lot ofFortranimplementations. I don't know if there is any
> implementation of a suffix tree done inFortran. Although Fortran has a
> form very close to pseudo code;
> 3) Many important CS concepts such as database, networking, operating
> system simply has no relevance withFortran...
> 4.Fortran sucks at information mining at this information age.

To the extent "information mining" comprises statistical analysis,
this is not true. Fortran has been one of the main languages in which
such algorithms (and the linear algebra operations they employ) are
written. The R statistics system has large parts written in Fortran,
as are many R packages.

>
> However Fortran has a kind of beauty with it, it's hard to explain, it
> makes you feel closer to the bare machine and the circuits powering it
> and it's warm and fuzzy... It's that feeling that you feel when you
> program in assembly...

It is C, not Fortran, that is often termed "portable assembly". I
think of Fortran 95 more as a compiled Matlab (without the built-in
graphics).
From: Beliavsky on 7 Apr 2008 16:38
On Apr 4, 1:21 pm, Gordon Sande <g.sa...(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote:

<snip>

> Can one ask, and hope for a straight answer, whether these are commercial Fortran compilers or not?

I think you mean to ask if g95 and/or gfortran are commercial
*quality*. They clearly are not commercial. I'd say that g95 is
commercial quality in the sense of compiling and correctly running
large Fortran 95 codes, although it may run them appreciably more
slowly. I have not used gfortran recently, but it did run my codes.

I think I read that the gcc C compiler may never fully implement C99.
Does the gcc C++ compiler fully implement the latest C++ standard?
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Fortran 77 parser
Next: The structure contains one or more misaligned fields