Jean Vézina wrote:

> I have read with much interest the J3 response about the public comments.

> 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. 

As a "representative" (well, not officially) of the GNU Fortran effort, 
I am looked upon by the WG5/J3 committees as representing a "vendor".

At the London joint WG5/J3 meeting in August 2007 I tried to explain 
where we stand on this matter.

GNU Fortran is different from other vendors because we do not directly 
compete in bids.  That makes it easier for us to "avoid" the "you should 
support the Fortran X Standard, or else" decisions.  That also means we 
tend to implement what we think is implementable (by the team that we 
have); essentially, people take on projects they think they have a good 
chance of completing.

Although I do not think the Fortran 2003 Standard is a failure, this 
attitude of ours *does* put it at a disadvantage for GNU Fortran: 
Several features of the 2003 Standard mean an overhaul of sorts in 
either the compiler proper, or - more extensively - its run time 
library.  This means there is a tendency to "hesitate to implement" 
these features.

That said, I hear (in the public comments and elsewhere) that the fact 
that so few completely conformant Fortran 2003 compilers exist as a 
reason for slowing down the Fortran 2008 Standard.  I think this 
reasoning is faulty.  Few, if any, of the new features in Fortran 2008 
are dependent on new additions in Fortran 2003 (that is, Fortran 2008 
can largely be considered an update to Fortran 95).

In fact, this is what can be observed in GNU Fortran development (one of 
the nice things about being a free compiler is that its development 
process can be open): Both Fortran 2003 and Fortran 2008 features are 
developed alongside, without interference.

I hope this helps the discussion.

Kind regards,

-- 
Toon Moene - e-mail: [log in to unmask] - phone: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG  Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
At home: http://moene.indiv.nluug.nl/~toon/
Progress of GNU Fortran: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-01/msg00009.html