|Fortran without its legacy. firstname.lastname@example.org (Toon Moene) (2004-02-26)|
|Re: Fortran without its legacy. email@example.com (Joachim Durchholz) (2004-02-26)|
|From:||Toon Moene <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||26 Feb 2004 01:39:12 -0500|
|Organization:||Moene Computational Physics, Maartensdijk, NL|
|Posted-Date:||26 Feb 2004 01:39:11 EST|
Gentle Compiler Folk,
Recently, http://www.fortranstatement.com popped up. It petitions the
ANSI J3 committee to retire FORTRAN (I don't think we're allowed to do
so - however, we *do* have to vote for the continued existence of
previous Fortran Standards occasionally).
A more interesting question is (implicit in this site's "discussion"):
Would Fortran exist without its legacy code ?
I.e., would the current Fortran language, as defined by its Standard
(loosely called "Fortran 95") exist on its own merits ?
Toon Moene - mailto:email@example.com - phoneto: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
Maintainer, GNU Fortran 77: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/g77_news.html
GNU Fortran 95: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/ (under construction)
[I think the first response on the response page pretty much sums up why
Fortran is still an important language, and wishing otherwise won't make
it go away. It's still the only language for seriously high performance
numerical software. -John]
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.