Martin Ambuhl <mamb...@earthlink.net> writes:And yet #10 is one of the most commonly heard claims about Fortran, so
> "Craig T. Dedo" wrote:
> > 1. Fortran is 3 way IF statements and one-trip DO loops.
> > 2. Fortran encourages unstructured code and spaghetti-style control flow.
> > 3. Fortran can't do Windows.
> > 4. Fortran is unportable. If you really want portability, you should write
> > your program in C.
> > 5. Fortran is only for scientific and engineering applications.
> > 6. The only real fortran is FORTRAN 77 (or, FORTRAN 66).
> > 7. Fortran can't call system routines.
> > 8. You can't do character string operations easily in Fortran.
> > 9. Only Microsoft makes a PC-based Fortran compiler of any importance.
> > 10. Fortran is a dead language. No one uses it any more to write important
> > applications.
> You are emphasizing expansion at the expense of truth. In particular,
> over a history of 35 years of programming I have never heard #1, #3, #4,
> #5, #6, #7, or #9. #2 and #8 reflect a reality about much legacy
> Fortran code and are probably widely believed. If someone asserted #10,
> I would be suspicious of his general computing knowlege.
I for one would not blame Craig for listing it.
#8 is a statement about the language itself, not about particular
I don't think I've heard the others verbatim, but certainly some of
> You should also know that COBOL suffers much more than Fortran in thisThere has been a fair amount of Cobol (with mixed case, for the same
> respect. I suspect that the Fortran community is replete with people
> who make ugly noises about COBOL that are more misinformed than any of
> the items you list for Fortran. The analog to #10 is frequently found,
> even though the code-base for COBOL outstrips any other language.
reasons as Fortran) advocacy over on comp.lang.ada recently.
That said, #10 is a statement not about the size of the code base (we
> I also know that frequently anti-C postings are made in comp.lang.cDo those postings in comp.lang.c really come from Fortran users?
> which demonstrate that the version of C the posters know is about 1972,
> certainly before the 1989 standard. If Fortran partisans can insist
> that C is still at pre-standard 1972 levels, then surely they have no
> room to squeal if others think Fortran ossified to F77 or F66.
And is this thread at all about squealing? I thought it was about
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.