I want to quote an old comp.compilers post by its moderator about how
FORTRAN programmers are not bothered to consult the FORTRAN standard
(circa FORTRAN-66) so they insist that they know FORTRAN when they do
not, so a new FORTRAN standard (circa FORTRAN-77) made a >backwards-incompatible change to accept this wrong belief of what
FORTRAN really is. Alas searching for it takes too long (the 3 search
options offered by
I want to quote an old comp.compilers post by its moderator about how >>FORTRAN programmers are not bothered to consult the FORTRAN standard
(circa FORTRAN-66) so they insist that they know FORTRAN when they do
not, so a new FORTRAN standard (circa FORTRAN-77) made a >>backwards-incompatible change to accept this wrong belief of what
FORTRAN really is. Alas searching for it takes too long (the 3 search >>options offered by
I'm pretty sure I didn't say that. Possibly someone else did but I don't >recall that either. In fact F77 tried hard to stay compatible with F66 and >the few incompatibilities were well documented and had good rationales.
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
I'm pretty sure I didn't say that. Possibly someone else did but I don't
recall that either. In fact F77 tried hard to stay compatible with F66 and >> the few incompatibilities were well documented and had good rationales.
In 1990 I led a project with Shell. All calculations were still required to use FORTRAN IV. Because there was substantial graphics involved we got dispensation to use c on VMS. (Using transputers, also occam was allowed.) Compatibility was a priority.
| Sysop: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 5 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 24:10:11 |
| Calls: | 117 |
| Calls today: | 117 |
| Files: | 368 |
| D/L today: |
560 files (257M bytes) |
| Messages: | 70,913 |
| Posted today: | 26 |