Hello,
There are links in the article, both to the author and,
apparently, to the editor. The link to the editor at one point
solicits "feedback", at another point solicits "rants".
I may post, if I have time, a rebuttal on my web site.
If I do, I will forward the URL to the author and the editor.
The general complaint is that, while the paper promotes
such "goodness" practices as "make the comments meaningfully agree
with the code", the paper itself explicitly disavows
the paper's title! Where am I to start?
--
Cheers!
Dan Nagle
Purple Sage Computing Solutions, Inc.
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 08:08:24 -0500, "Russell, Richard"
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Every time there is some commentary on Fortran being a poor choice of
>language, usually by someone who doesn't presently use a current level
>of Fortran for its intended purpose, there is a flurry of energetic
>rebuttal from the Fortran user community. I find all of this fascinating
>and delightful reading. But does anyone know if the author has seen or
>been advised of the vociferous rebuttals to his article in this forum?
>It would be interesting to see his response to what has been said here.
>Would it be appropriate to email him and invite a response? Would he
>respond?
>
>Dick Russell
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Fortran 90 List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
>Of [log in to unmask]
>Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 7:30 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: How Not to Write FORTRAN in Any Language
|