From: Lynn McGuire on
> Just to clarify: are you staying with Open Watcom F77 and not trying
> to port to Fortran 2003? I was awaiting reports of differences in
> speed with the Fortran 2003 version. Ah , well.

For the moment. Our code just works here. But, I am considering
trying out the Absoft fortran compiler ( http://absoft.com/ ) as it
has a good rep.

My long term goal is to convert our F77 code to C++ using FOR_C.
We may be trying this later this year when all of our Hollerith
code is gone.

> An old technique, but if it works it works!

I have found that improvements in the algorithm are always superior
to code optimization. But, the automatic vectorization in Absoft
sounds interesting.

Thanks,
Lynn
From: Colin Paul Gloster on
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010, Lynn McGuire sent:

|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"[..] |
| |
|My long term goal is to convert our F77 code to C++ using FOR_C. |
|[..]" |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|

Using C++ is a bad idea.

|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"> An old technique, but if it works it works! |
| |
|I have found that improvements in the algorithm are always superior|
|to code optimization. [..] |
|[..]" |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|

One does not always have that option.
From: Lynn McGuire on
> |My long term goal is to convert our F77 code to C++ using FOR_C. |
> |[..]" |
>
> Using C++ is a bad idea.

Why ? Half of our app is already in C++. We have 600,000
lines of f77 code and 600,000 lines of c++ code. The c++
code is far easier to maintain and code in.

Thanks,
Lynn
From: Ron Shepard on
In article <i02tfs$rv3$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
Lynn McGuire <lmc(a)winsim.com> wrote:

> > Using C++ is a bad idea.
>
> Why ? Half of our app is already in C++. We have 600,000
> lines of f77 code and 600,000 lines of c++ code. The c++
> code is far easier to maintain and code in.

After looking at your f77 code (with all of its nonstandard
extensions) that you have posted here, I would say that is damnation
by faint praise.

$.02 -Ron Shepard
From: Gordon Sande on
On 2010-06-25 20:29:11 -0300, Ron Shepard
<ron-shepard(a)NOSPAM.comcast.net> said:

> In article <i02tfs$rv3$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
> Lynn McGuire <lmc(a)winsim.com> wrote:
>
>>> Using C++ is a bad idea.
>>
>> Why ? Half of our app is already in C++. We have 600,000
>> lines of f77 code and 600,000 lines of c++ code. The c++
>> code is far easier to maintain and code in.
>
> After looking at your f77 code (with all of its nonstandard
> extensions) that you have posted here, I would say that is damnation
> by faint praise.
>
> $.02 -Ron Shepard

Les Hatton (he has a web site) has published reports on studies of production
codes in oil exploration. C, C++ and Fortran with Fortran causing least
problems. Various others have reported that C++ is a real bear with
two caveats 1. no use of object inheritance 2. serious objects only
when objects are very well designed such as the (many-ith iteration)
of a design such as windows and the design is now static and widely used.
Basically C++ is impossible to read/maintain is there is any serious
local use of objects as one no longer knows what the code is doing with
only a local inspection.