| Re: What does an optimal scientific programming language/environment need? [message #36500] |
Mon, 22 September 2003 11:18  |
Duane Bozarth
Messages: 4
Registered: September 2003
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Duane Bozarth wrote:
>
> Richard Maine wrote:
>>
>> Duane Bozarth <dp_bozarth@swko.dot.net> writes:
>>
>>> Well, since F77 there is little that has actually been removed and a
>>> major consideration (as is evidenced in converstions in c.l.f) is
>>> maintaining compatability w/existing code. In practice, virtually
>>> nothing is ever removed from a commercial compiler although most have
>>> switches to allow specific standard level violations to be flagged...
>>
>> Note that the "since f77" applies to the whole paragraph. Whether
>> you intended it to or not, I'm unsure; but it needs to.
>
> Yes, I <did> intend that--hopefully it wasn't <too> unclear, but
> undoubtedly wise to comment/amplify...
>
> I was, admittedly, making an implicit assumption that there really are
> few pre-F77 compilers around, which is, not <necessarily> globally true,
> but for a new language on what was specified to be for "Wintel/Lintel"
> only platforms figured that wouldn't be a stretch.
Although on re-reading Phil's posting, <maybe> the fairly substantial
differences from pre- and post-F77 are specifically what he is referring
to and my reading was perhaps(?) too narrow...
|
|
|
|
| Re: What does an optimal scientific programming language/environment need? [message #36501 is a reply to message #36500] |
Mon, 22 September 2003 11:16  |
Duane Bozarth
Messages: 4
Registered: September 2003
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Richard Maine wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth <dp_bozarth@swko.dot.net> writes:
>
>> Well, since F77 there is little that has actually been removed and a
>> major consideration (as is evidenced in converstions in c.l.f) is
>> maintaining compatability w/existing code. In practice, virtually
>> nothing is ever removed from a commercial compiler although most have
>> switches to allow specific standard level violations to be flagged...
>
> Note that the "since f77" applies to the whole paragraph. Whether
> you intended it to or not, I'm unsure; but it needs to.
Yes, I <did> intend that--hopefully it wasn't <too> unclear, but
undoubtedly wise to comment/amplify...
I was, admittedly, making an implicit assumption that there really are
few pre-F77 compilers around, which is, not <necessarily> globally true,
but for a new language on what was specified to be for "Wintel/Lintel"
only platforms figured that wouldn't be a stretch.
|
|
|
|
| Re: What does an optimal scientific programming language/environment need? [message #36568 is a reply to message #36500] |
Thu, 25 September 2003 05:42 |
phil chastney
Messages: 5
Registered: September 2003
|
Junior Member |
|
|
"Duane Bozarth" <dp_bozarth@swko.dot.net> wrote in message
news:3F6F3CF4.8A52AE14@swko.dot.net...
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
>>
>> Richard Maine wrote:
>>>
>> Yes, I <did> intend that--hopefully it wasn't <too> unclear, but
>> undoubtedly wise to comment/amplify...
>>
>> I was, admittedly, making an implicit assumption that there really are
>> few pre-F77 compilers around, which is, not <necessarily> globally true,
>> but for a new language on what was specified to be for "Wintel/Lintel"
>> only platforms figured that wouldn't be a stretch.
>
> Although on re-reading Phil's posting, <maybe> the fairly substantial
> differences from pre- and post-F77 are specifically what he is referring
> to and my reading was perhaps(?) too narrow...
yup -- showing my age, I guess -- I started on Fortran IV
how about Perl as a better example of the value of occasionally making a break
with the past? -- when I first encountered Perl 4, I swore I'd never write
another shell script, but the language wasn't really what I'd call "industrial
strength" -- then along came Perl 5, which had all the facilities I wanted --
so many facilities, in fact, that the syntax was context-sensitive (although
Larry Wall claimed the compiler was pretty good at guessing what the programmer
meant) -- an ambiguous syntax isn't a good basis for development, so he's
taken the brave step of a redesign for Perl 6 -- good luck to him
one reason for the redesign is the desire (the need?) to base the thing on
Unicode from the ground up, as opposed to having an 8-bit language with
character routines for UTF-8 or UCS-2 -- I didn't see Unicode mentioned in the
OP at the head of this thread -- is it fair to take Unicode as a sine qua non
of any modern language? especially now that they've incorporated the AMS
extensions?
all the best . . . /phil
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
