At 20:30 10-12-97 -0500, you wrote:
>Roger Glover wrote:
>
--- (snip) ---
>
>I am not sure of the validity of this statement. I am now inclined
>to think that the ignorance of the existence of Fortran 90 (and now
>F95) and of its capabilities are the main reason of the change. When
>I have asked to programmers that abandoned Fortran in profit of
>C/C++ why they have make the change, the Fortran they are referring
>is invariably F77. In the mind of many people, the Fortran language
>is F77 . Check at the comp.lang.fortran newsgroup and you will see
>that many people are still using F77 despite of the considerable
>advantages of F90. This is very disappointing.
Here I do agree.
In the beginning of F90 the argument was the absence of reliable compilers.
Now I don't understand why organisations often refuse to step up to
modernisation, permitting the use of array-expressions and
built-in checking tools of F90/95, etc...
>In the four examples cited (high energy physics, seismic data analysis,
>radar signature and financial modelling), it is probable that the
>programmers have made the comparison between F77 and C++, and the choice
>was obvious.
>
>If we want that our favorite language survives, we must do some PR
>and show that the evolution of Fortran goes far beyond F77.
I did and still do.
---
Best Greetings,
Jan van Oosterwijk
Computing Centre
Delft University of Technology
P.O. Box 354
2600 AJ Delft
Netherlands
Phone: +31 15 278 50 17
Fax: +31 15 278 37 87
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|