 |
 |
From [log in to unmask] Thu Dec 11 09:40:03 1997 Original-Sender: [log in to unmask] Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 16:30:01 -0600 Subject: Re: Another 2 cents worth - for implicit typing From: Roger Glover <[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] wrote: > Fortran will survive if and only if it remains a SMALL > language, Fortran 90 already made Fortran a much "larger" language than C (although significantly "smaller" than "C++"). If you already realize this your point must be that Fortran is already dying, at least relative to C. Of course, many would say that C is dying relative to C++, which is monstrously larger than either C or Fortran. Having said that, I would love to see Fortran made smaller, and deletion of redundant obsolescent features is the only real hope for making that happen. That's not likely to happen on account of the need to support legacy code. However, you can easily make Fortran a much smaller language by forgetting such features as EQUIVALENCE, COMMON, Arithmetic IF, DO 10 I = 1,5 , BLOCK DATA, etc, fixed-form input, or by using one of the subset compilers such as F and ELF90. > i, j, k used as summation indices without explicit typing > is SAFER than > > 'rumpelstiltskin' used as an index and declared as integer > hundreds of lines away in the code. Why? If I spell "rumpelstiltskin" differently on usage than on declaration, in C the compiler will not allow the code to pass. On the other hand, if I accidentally double-type "II" instead of "I" as my index in Fortran, the compiler will let everything go as if nothing were wrong. Even if you already have a variable called "II". -------- Cray Research --------- Roger Glover -- A Silicon Graphics Company -- http://home.cray.com/~glover %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%