Phillip Helbig wrote:
>> I have noticed the following remarks from Richard Maine about the
>> reasons of the current lack of full Fortran 2003 compilers:
>> "1. The f2003 standard is a failure. In that case the committee should
>> be studying and addressing the reasons for the failure instead of just
>> pressing on.
>>
>> 2. It is just too early to expect full implementations of something as
>> large as f2003. In that case, it is also too early to be proposing a
>> follow-on standard."
>>
>> Actually, compilers vendors should answer directly why there are still
>> no full implementations of Fortran 2003 processors.
>>
There are at least two compilers that are very close to being done with
f03, and will probably be done by the end of this year. By "done" I
mean that any shortcoming qualifies for a bug report that cannot be
replied with "we don't have that feature done yet". Since there are so
few programs out there that actually use a lot of the f03 features (the
classic chicken-egg problem), I'm sure some end cases will have been
missed in testing and it will take a while for f03 compilers to
mature. The same thing happened with f90.
The main reason f03 took so long was that the main features, especially
object oriented programming and parameterized derived types, were
enormous implementation tasks.
>> Their representatives in the J3 committee are certainly aware of the
>> reasons why it takes so much time to have fully compliant compilers.
>> There is no need for guessing here. Complexity of the language is a
>> valid reason, but I am afraid that the true reason is that Fortran is
>> no longer a high priority item for them and they allocate some of
>> their resources elsewhere.
>>
The priority of Fortran varies quite a bit among vendors. At least for
Cray, Fortran has a very high priority.
>
> The lower priority of Fortran for many vendors definitely plays a role.
>
> Time was, the vendors would implement the features THEN they would
> appear in the standard. :-)
>
Indeed, this was not the case for the hard features of f03, and mostly
explains the long development time.
In contrast, if you overlook minor syntax variations, most of what is
new in the Fortran 2008 draft has already been implemented by at least
one vendor, so perhaps we've drifted back toward the old model.
Cheers,
Bill
> After F90 took so long, the idea was to have a new standard every 5
> years, but have only every other one be a major change. I think it
> would be a good idea to get back to this and stick to it strictly. That
> way, vendors know when how much work will be needed. F95 came more or
> less on time, but F2000 became F2003---too long a delay. Perhaps, when
> the corresponding time comes, one should just put in the standard the
> stuff which is ready, rather leaving some stuff out rather than having a
> delay. As a Supreme Court Justice once said, "We're not final because
> we're definitive; we're definitive because we're final."
>
--
Bill Long [log in to unmask]
Fortran Technical Support & voice: 651-605-9024
Bioinformatics Software Development fax: 651-605-9142
Cray Inc., 1340 Mendota Heights Rd., Mendota Heights, MN, 55120
|