 |
 |
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Phillip Helbig <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > Unfortunately, I'm still using Fortran95. The reason is that I still > use VMS. VMS compilers, especially the Fortran compiler, used to be the > gold standard. Now that VSI has not only taken over VMS but also > indicated major compiler updates, I hope that I can move to a newer > standard before too long. (So far, I've only run across one thing that > I need in a later standard, and there is a clumsy workaround in F95, but > of course there are probably things in the newer standards I didn't know > I needed.) > The folks at VSI are quite competent - I know a number of them personally - but I think you're dreaming if you think they will be able to quickly bring a F95+ compiler (it had a few F2003 features) up to full F2003 much less F2008 or F2015. It took the DEC Fortran team at Intel thirteen years from that point to get to F2008 - and these folks knew Fortran, the compiler and run-time inside and out. I have more hopes for VSI's X86 port of VMS than I do of playing language catch-up with the VMS Fortran compiler base. I've suggested before that starting from a gfortran base would get one to a modern standard quicker, but you'd lose many of the "legacy" features of the DEC-heritage compiler. However, I think the majority of VSI's paying customer base is more interested in an architecture port for existing applications than new language features. Steve -- .