Dr Michael Hardy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Albero Fasso said:
>
> > > - every program unit contains IMPLICIT NONE
> > > - every module starts with PRIVATE
> > > as a convention/programming style. Pity these two are not defaults.
> > > I'd like to be able to say "Not just a good idea - it's the LAW!" ;-)
> >
> > Let me disagree with this widespread point of view.
> > Fortran is great because it leaves you freedom. If you want to program
> > safely, nobody can stop you; but I like to be left the choice to myself.
> > Not everybody writes huge programs all the time: I am using Fortran
> > every day, but most of the time to write small programs (I use it very
> > often instead of a pocket calculator or of a shell script). In these
> > cases I am not willing to waste my time declaring all variables,
> > including the index of the do-loop which sometimes constitutes my whole
> > program.
> > The implicit type convention is extremely useful for this kind of "scrap
> > paper" calculations. When I have to write a "serious" program then
> > things are different, and I take seriously IMPLICIT NONE, indentation,
> > comments, etc. But please, forget unnecessary constraints and especially
> > the LAWs: we are all adults, not schoolchildren.
>
> Can I strongly support this position. When I suggested something
> similar to this list ~2 years ago I was privately mailed some notes
> of support, but was flamed on the list!
>
Then let me express my public support. Especially on this ``last bit'':
adults can program safely, and decide by themselves which constraint
is useful and when. Those who want to turn Fortran 90 into a language
for schoolchildren should consider the fate of Pascal. I don't trust
a programmer on his ``habits'', but on his reasonning and practice.
Those who don't know why they use IMPLICIT NONE, apart that somebody
told them to, should not be allowed to program at all.
A language such as Fortran is a tool to solve Real World problems, and
only secondarily to teach schoolchildren. In my Real World, efficiency
is almost always based on implicitness. I strongly resent being treated
as an unsensible non-adult, and forced to loose efficiency, by ``law
everywhere'' proselytes. And just like some people, which I praise and
laud and appreciate, designed F and ELF90 for training to good programming,
I would like to have time to design E, a ``dirty subset'' for engineers, and
the E to F90 (or to F, or to ELF) translator. And if I happen to find the
time to do it, I will be much prouder of myself than if I were to lobby for
constraints as defaults in the standards committees where I participate.
Michel
| Michel OLAGNON email : [log in to unmask]
| IFREMER: Institut Francais de Recherches pour l'Exploitation de la Mer|
| Centre de Brest - B.P. 70 phone : +33-2-9822 4144|
| F-29280 PLOUZANE - FRANCE fax : +33-2-9822 4135|
| http://www.ifremer.fr/ditigo/molagnon/molagnon.html |
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|