F95 standard

20 views
Skip to first unread message

Stephen Howe

unread,
May 12, 2006, 3:35:41 AM5/12/06
to
Hi

I have what I think is the F95 standard in PDF format. Payed and downloaded
it some time back - about 3-4 years ago.
It says, "ISO/IEC 1539-1 Part 1: Base language"
I think I also some small additional PDF files.

The file is hefty and weighs in at 55Mb. While I found out why last night.
The entire document is just scanned graphical images. It is not stored as
text.
I now feel cheated. Because you can't search for words, or quote parts of
the standard, in text unlike ISO/IEC C2003 or ISO/IEC C++2003 standards
(with both Technical Corrigendum 1's applied).
An utter con.

Does anyone now if you can get the Fortran standards as text (the equivalent
of a Word document I supposed), not graphics?
Where? I want only textual documents, not scanned graphical images.

Thanks

Stephen Howe


Joost

unread,
May 12, 2006, 4:35:58 AM5/12/06
to
The official version is just scanned txt.

I would recommend the latest draft of the fortran 95 standard:

http://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/97/97-007r2/pdf/97-007r2.pdf

which is very similar to the official one but text based (and thus
nicer to use). The latest standard (Fortran2003) even has convenient
links in the pdf (at least the draft, don't know about the official
one).

Joost

Richard E Maine

unread,
May 12, 2006, 11:01:52 AM5/12/06
to
Joost <jv...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:

ISO messed up the pdf links in f2003. They have been bitched at about
it. :-(

I would say that 97-007r2 is more than "very similar" to the official
f95 standard. Since I'm the one who produced both the 97-007r2 document
and the paper document that was scanned to make what you bought, I know
exactly what the differences are. They are:

1. The 97-007r2 document has different page headers and footers; they
say "working draft" instead of having the ISO headers. Likewise, the
97-002 doesn't have the ISO front pages and copyright notice.

2. The 97-007r2 document has line numbers, which make it more handy to
cite exact lines.

3. As you noticed, the copy from ANSI is scanned. I wish they had
contacted me (the editor) for a pdf instead, but there is a long (and
continuing - sigh :-() history of internal communication problems in
ISO. Instead of communicating with me for a pdf, which I could have
given them, they scanned a paper copy that I had previously sent them.

The committee itself uses the 007r2 document. I suspect that several of
the committee members have never actually seen the "official" one.

As an aside, for those who might be curious about such things, the f95
standard document was produced using Adobe FrameMaker; the f2003
document was produced with LaTeX.

--
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: my first.last at org.domain| experience comes from bad judgment.
org: nasa, domain: gov | -- Mark Twain

Gary L. Scott

unread,
May 12, 2006, 9:41:52 PM5/12/06
to
LaTex! why the trip back in time?

--

Gary Scott
mailto:gary...@ev1.net

Fortran Library: http://www.fortranlib.com

Support the Original G95 Project: http://www.g95.org
-OR-
Support the GNU GFortran Project: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/index.html

Why are there two? God only knows.


If you want to do the impossible, don't hire an expert because he knows
it can't be done.

-- Henry Ford

Greg Lindahl

unread,
May 12, 2006, 10:20:56 PM5/12/06
to
In article <126aeb9...@corp.supernews.com>,

Gary L. Scott <gary...@ev1.net> wrote:

>LaTex! why the trip back in time?

LaTeX is to Word as Fortran is to ... ?

Seriously, lots of academics still use it; in Physics, Astronomy, &
Math, many journals require TeX formatting.

-- g

Richard Maine

unread,
May 12, 2006, 10:41:28 PM5/12/06
to
Gary L. Scott <gary...@ev1.net> wrote:

> LaTex! why the trip back in time?

Because it was a trip forward in functionality. I couldn't stand Frame.
My gripes about it would be too long an off-topic diatribe for this
group. My wrists still can feel the results of doing about 1,000 changes
relating to xrefs one time early in the f95 editing. I could have done
the comparable thing in the LaTex source files in about 5 minutes od
developing a suitable search&replace pattern. In frame, each one took
about a dozen mouse moves&clicks, with careful positioning. And I
didn't/don't like any of the other options any better. Not that my likes
were the sole criterion. In fact, I was against using Frame for f95, but
a majority favored it, so I went along. Getting away from it was a major
relief.

The details of the reasons are really too far off topic to go into, but
I find the dismissal of LaTex as a "trip back in time" ironic in this
newsgroup. The irony is so strong as to almost make it on topic. I
suppose perhaps the irony was intentional humor that just went over my
head.

As with programming languages, I select editors (when I get a choice)
based on things such as functionality and ease of use, not on age and
popularity.

--
Richard Maine | Good judgement comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement.
domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain

Gary L. Scott

unread,
May 12, 2006, 11:11:40 PM5/12/06
to
Richard Maine wrote:

> Gary L. Scott <gary...@ev1.net> wrote:
>
>
>>LaTex! why the trip back in time?
>
>
> Because it was a trip forward in functionality. I couldn't stand Frame.
> My gripes about it would be too long an off-topic diatribe for this
> group. My wrists still can feel the results of doing about 1,000 changes
> relating to xrefs one time early in the f95 editing. I could have done
> the comparable thing in the LaTex source files in about 5 minutes od
> developing a suitable search&replace pattern. In frame, each one took
> about a dozen mouse moves&clicks, with careful positioning. And I
> didn't/don't like any of the other options any better. Not that my likes
> were the sole criterion. In fact, I was against using Frame for f95, but
> a majority favored it, so I went along. Getting away from it was a major
> relief.
>
> The details of the reasons are really too far off topic to go into, but
> I find the dismissal of LaTex as a "trip back in time" ironic in this
> newsgroup. The irony is so strong as to almost make it on topic. I
> suppose perhaps the irony was intentional humor that just went over my
> head.
>
> As with programming languages, I select editors (when I get a choice)
> based on things such as functionality and ease of use, not on age and
> popularity.
>

Was tongue in cheek. I personally love Script/GML (a text programming
language). But most people don't want to have to set up their own macro
library (the IBM defaults are of course only a subset of the needed
functionality). A union person at work recently became upset that we
weren't using Word for everything and tried to force it (because few if
any in that job category knew Frame or Interleaf). My litany of
difficulties with processing large documents, especially those with
references/indexing seems to have staved off a catastrophe for the time
being. We regularly put out documents in the 1000 to 2000 page range
(we break them up into volumes, one set is around 15 volumes) with Frame
and Interleaf, with both internal and external links/references and with
little difficulty (unless somebody messes with the
profile/catalog/component library). Since muliple people are working on
individual sections within a volume, sometimes they copy the components
and monkey with them and when you try to put them back together,
tweaking is necessary. That's one of the problems with Frame and
Interleaf...individuals can monkey with the "approved" component
definitions.

Dr Ivan D. Reid

unread,
May 13, 2006, 4:33:19 AM5/13/06
to
On Fri, 12 May 2006 20:41:52 -0500, Gary L. Scott <gary...@ev1.net>
wrote in <126aeb9...@corp.supernews.com>:
> Richard E Maine wrote:

>> As an aside, for those who might be curious about such things, the f95
>> standard document was produced using Adobe FrameMaker; the f2003
>> document was produced with LaTeX.

> LaTex! why the trip back in time?

Why not? Even my Atari MegaST will process a page a second.
OK, it's nearly as bad as Word for placing figures where _it_ wants,
but it still gives you more control for most items. A student of ours
used Word for his thesis; afterwards he went back to \LaTeX[1] and swore
never to use Word again.

[1] Once described as WYSIRWYGIYGAAA[2].
[2] What you see is rarely what you get, if you get anything at all![3]
[3] Though to be honest, I find the combination of cygwin[4], Latex, X11,
xdvik, ghostscript, and a modern computer allows me to edit documents and
see the results in seconds. OK, I needed some tricks to both underline
and hyphenate "Jayasooriya" this week, but that sort of knowledge is needed
in Word too.
[4] If you need to run Windows rather than some flavour of UNIX.

--
Ivan Reid, Electronic & Computer Engineering, ___ CMS Collaboration,
Brunel University. Ivan.Reid@[brunel.ac.uk|cern.ch] Room 40-1-B12, CERN
KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".

Clive Page

unread,
May 13, 2006, 6:17:24 AM5/13/06
to
In message <1hf7s6y.1l41hp44ntnuoN%nos...@see.signature>, Richard E
Maine <nos...@see.signature> writes

>As an aside, for those who might be curious about such things, the f95
>standard document was produced using Adobe FrameMaker; the f2003
>document was produced with LaTeX.

I'm glad that this WYSIWYG idea is now seen to be just a temporary fad.
And presumably the next Fortran Standard will be prepared on 80-column
punched-cards?

Actually I am saying this tongue in cheek, as I still use Latex from
time to time, though I feel a bit of a dinosaur in doing so. There are
some features that none of the modern word-processors do as well. The
main problem I've found, as a user of Tex/Latex for at least 20 years,
is that it's well-nigh impossible to get secretaries to cope with Latex.
In recent years, of course, we've become used to doing all our own data
entry and word processing, so this problem hardly arises. So maybe the
Latex renaissance is not far off?

Is Tex/Latex the oldest software still in regular widespread use?

--
Clive Page

Aldebaran

unread,
May 13, 2006, 6:48:11 AM5/13/06
to

The possible life of TeX/metafont/LaTeX is for more than 500
years. The versión converges to Pi=3.1415.. and the metafont version
converges to E=2.7182.. The character resolution is smaller then the
ultraviolet wave length, so then no further screen nor printer will
require other program.
I am using TeX/LaTex/metafont for more than 8 years. There are macros for
any task, you can write music or maths or pictures without any trouble.
You can write from left to right or vice versa. TeX knows how to display
math fomulae correctely. Only one problem with TeX: It must be learned
before using it....

Harold Stevens

unread,
May 13, 2006, 8:08:02 AM5/13/06
to
In <v1jP2CF0...@page.demon.co.uk> Clive Page:

[Snip...]

> Is Tex/Latex the oldest software still in regular widespread use?

Dunno, but FWIW, I think its pedigree is without peer:

http://www.softpanorama.org/People/Knuth/index.shtml

IMO, Framemaker, etc., don't even approach this utility and endurance.

--
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT.
Kids jumping ship? Looking to hire an old-school type? Email me.

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply

unread,
May 13, 2006, 8:23:44 AM5/13/06
to
In article <126aeb9...@corp.supernews.com>, "Gary L. Scott"
<gary...@ev1.net> writes:

> LaTex! why the trip back in time?

Possibly because a) it is the right tool for the job and b) LaTeX is
quite alive and well? I'm reminded of those folks who shout "Fortran!
Why the trip back in time?" or "VMS! Is that still legal?"

Walt Brainerd

unread,
May 13, 2006, 11:17:02 AM5/13/06
to
Gary L. Scott wrote:
. . .

> LaTex! why the trip back in time?

To add to the trip, the 90 standard was done
in troff and the 77 standard was done at
Bell Labs by JC Noll using some sort of
predecessory to troff. I don't know how
they did the 66 standard; I wasn't there.

(Before we get some snide comments about
troff, I will say that, in the '80s, it
was better than tex, in my humble opinion.
It just didn't evolve like tex did.)

--
Walt Brainerd wa...@fortran.com
The Fortran Company
6025 N. Wilmot Rd., Tucson, AZ 85750 USA
http://www.fortran.com

Gary L. Scott

unread,
May 13, 2006, 12:42:23 PM5/13/06
to
Dr Ivan D. Reid wrote:

> On Fri, 12 May 2006 20:41:52 -0500, Gary L. Scott <gary...@ev1.net>
> wrote in <126aeb9...@corp.supernews.com>:
>
>>Richard E Maine wrote:
>
>
>>>As an aside, for those who might be curious about such things, the f95
>>>standard document was produced using Adobe FrameMaker; the f2003
>>>document was produced with LaTeX.
>
>
>
>>LaTex! why the trip back in time?
>
>
> Why not? Even my Atari MegaST will process a page a second.
> OK, it's nearly as bad as Word for placing figures where _it_ wants,
> but it still gives you more control for most items. A student of ours
> used Word for his thesis; afterwards he went back to \LaTeX[1] and swore
> never to use Word again.
>
> [1] Once described as WYSIRWYGIYGAAA[2].
> [2] What you see is rarely what you get, if you get anything at all![3]
> [3] Though to be honest, I find the combination of cygwin[4], Latex, X11,
> xdvik, ghostscript, and a modern computer allows me to edit documents and
> see the results in seconds. OK, I needed some tricks to both underline
> and hyphenate "Jayasooriya" this week, but that sort of knowledge is needed
> in Word too.
> [4] If you need to run Windows rather than some flavour of UNIX.
>

Well, our IT department has nearly squashed all use of UNIX. We
continuously have to justify why we need to use "non-standard" computing
equipment.

Gary L. Scott

unread,
May 13, 2006, 12:52:04 PM5/13/06
to
Walt Brainerd wrote:

> Gary L. Scott wrote:
> . . .
>
>> LaTex! why the trip back in time?
>
>
> To add to the trip, the 90 standard was done
> in troff and the 77 standard was done at
> Bell Labs by JC Noll using some sort of
> predecessory to troff. I don't know how
> they did the 66 standard; I wasn't there.
>
> (Before we get some snide comments about
> troff, I will say that, in the '80s, it
> was better than tex, in my humble opinion.
> It just didn't evolve like tex did.)
>

They're all still an inadequate subset of the capability of Script/GML
(otherwise known as DCF - Document Composition Facility). There just
isn't anything it can't do in terms of formatting a document for
publication (including exact pixel placement and sizing of color
graphics which some might find surprising on a mainframe (CMYK color
separation masters too)). We had considerable difficulty building
catalogs for Frame and Interleaf that approximated the format
requirements that we had programmed in DCF. Of course graphics were
produced using separate applications and normally sized precisely and
then only placement needed to be specified in DCF. That part was
slightly clunky, but it is basically a language that you use to build
html-like tags from (or use the control words directly as many naive
users did).

Rich Townsend

unread,
May 13, 2006, 7:40:42 PM5/13/06
to

In the field of astronomy, most major journals now encourage authors to submit
manuscripts in LaTeX form. IMHO, nothing comes close to LaTeX for power,
flexibility and -- especially -- typesetting of equations.

Of course, now that authors do all of the typesetting, we're wondering what
exactly the publishers do. We pay to publish in the journal (in most cases). The
publishers no longer seem to do any typesetting. And then the public pays to
read the journal -- even though they most likely funded the research in the
first place, through their tax dollars.

Sounds like a license to print money....

cheers,

Rich

Dan Nagle

unread,
May 13, 2006, 8:34:51 PM5/13/06
to
Hello,

Rich Townsend wrote:

<snip>

> Of course, now that authors do all of the typesetting, we're wondering
> what exactly the publishers do. We pay to publish in the journal (in
> most cases). The publishers no longer seem to do any typesetting. And
> then the public pays to read the journal -- even though they most likely
> funded the research in the first place, through their tax dollars.
>
> Sounds like a license to print money....

LaTex source to follow? :-)

--
Cheers!

Dan Nagle
Purple Sage Computing Solutions, Inc.

Tom Micevski

unread,
May 13, 2006, 8:46:29 PM5/13/06
to
Richard E Maine wrote:
> Joost <jv...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> The official version is just scanned txt.
>>
>> I would recommend the latest draft of the fortran 95 standard:
>>
>> http://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/97/97-007r2/pdf/97-007r2.pdf
>>
>> which is very similar to the official one but text based (and thus
>> nicer to use). The latest standard (Fortran2003) even has convenient
>> links in the pdf (at least the draft, don't know about the official
>> one).
>
> ISO messed up the pdf links in f2003. They have been bitched at about
> it. :-(
>
> I would say that 97-007r2 is more than "very similar" to the official
> f95 standard. Since I'm the one who produced both the 97-007r2 document
> and the paper document that was scanned to make what you bought, I know
> exactly what the differences are. They are:

can i ask which draft is "very similar" to the fortran 2003 standard?

Gary L. Scott

unread,
May 13, 2006, 9:04:19 PM5/13/06
to
Tom Micevski wrote:

> Richard E Maine wrote:
>
>> Joost <jv...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> The official version is just scanned txt.
>>>
>>> I would recommend the latest draft of the fortran 95 standard:
>>>
>>> http://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/97/97-007r2/pdf/97-007r2.pdf
>>>
>>> which is very similar to the official one but text based (and thus
>>> nicer to use). The latest standard (Fortran2003) even has convenient
>>> links in the pdf (at least the draft, don't know about the official
>>> one).
>>
>>
>> ISO messed up the pdf links in f2003. They have been bitched at about
>> it. :-(
>>
>> I would say that 97-007r2 is more than "very similar" to the official
>> f95 standard. Since I'm the one who produced both the 97-007r2 document
>> and the paper document that was scanned to make what you bought, I know
>> exactly what the differences are. They are:
>
>
> can i ask which draft is "very similar" to the fortran 2003 standard?

Speaking of which...

j3-fortran.org link for F2003:

Object not found...

The document you requested was not found on our server.


"The mission of IAIT is to deliver the computing services and support
needed to
promote academic and administrative activities of RHIT."

Last updated: 05/30/02

Rose-Hulman

TSC Home

p.s. how about spiffing this web site up a little.

>
>> 1. The 97-007r2 document has different page headers and footers; they
>> say "working draft" instead of having the ISO headers. Likewise, the
>> 97-002 doesn't have the ISO front pages and copyright notice.
>>
>> 2. The 97-007r2 document has line numbers, which make it more handy to
>> cite exact lines.
>>
>> 3. As you noticed, the copy from ANSI is scanned. I wish they had
>> contacted me (the editor) for a pdf instead, but there is a long (and
>> continuing - sigh :-() history of internal communication problems in
>> ISO. Instead of communicating with me for a pdf, which I could have
>> given them, they scanned a paper copy that I had previously sent them.
>>
>> The committee itself uses the 007r2 document. I suspect that several of
>> the committee members have never actually seen the "official" one.
>>
>> As an aside, for those who might be curious about such things, the f95
>> standard document was produced using Adobe FrameMaker; the f2003
>> document was produced with LaTeX.
>>

Dan Nagle

unread,
May 13, 2006, 9:41:10 PM5/13/06
to
Hello,

Gary L. Scott wrote:

<snip>

> j3-fortran.org link for F2003:
>
> Object not found...
>
> The document you requested was not found on our server.

<sigh>

The link's broken but the document's still available.

Try the following:

Click "Complete J3 Document Archive"

Click "2003 Committee Draft"

Click "04-007.pdf"

The person at Rose-Hulman who was maintaining the site for us
has moved to something else. We discussed this a bit at 176,
and we're going to be moving the site somewhere else Real Soon Now.

It will still be http://www.j3-fortran.org

<snip>

Richard Maine

unread,
May 13, 2006, 10:39:24 PM5/13/06
to
Dan Nagle <dann...@verizon.net> wrote:

> The link's broken but the document's still available.

I just checked and the top-level link looked ok to me. Perhaps someone
fixed it within the last hour,or perhaps I was looking at a different
link. Either seems possible to me.

> Click "04-007.pdf"

And though the answer was implicit, I'll make it explicit. Yes, this is
"very similar" to the f2003 standard and is the document actually used
internally in the committee.

Brooks Moses

unread,
May 14, 2006, 12:51:30 AM5/14/06
to
Rich Townsend wrote:
> Of course, now that authors do all of the typesetting, we're wondering what
> exactly the publishers do. We pay to publish in the journal (in most cases). The
> publishers no longer seem to do any typesetting. And then the public pays to
> read the journal -- even though they most likely funded the research in the
> first place, through their tax dollars.
>
> Sounds like a license to print money....

Printing books and hosting the online copies doesn't happen for free.
Nor does all the logistical and organizational overhead required to make
sure that those things happen on schedule and with the right things in them.

For that matter, when you say that "authors do all of the typesetting",
do you mean that in your field they're submitting print-ready PDF files,
or that they're submitting LaTeX files? If the latter, chances are
pretty good that many of those LaTeX files require a bit of cleanup to
work properly in the house style. I've seen plenty of entertaining
horror stories about such things, and I gather they're at least as
common as author-submitted LaTeX files that are actually clean and
usable as-is.

I'm not saying that, *ahem*, _certain_ for-profit publishers who charge
particularly high rates aren't price-gouging. But the vast bulk of the
publishers aren't -- it does take a lot of work to publish a journal,
even if the authors are providing already-typeset papers.

- Brooks

(Disclaimer: my wife works for a journal publisher. Hers handles the
typesetting, and doesn't charge fees to publish.)


--
The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed.

Michael Metcalf

unread,
May 14, 2006, 10:18:02 AM5/14/06
to

"Brooks Moses" <bmoses...@cits1.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:4466B752...@cits1.stanford.edu...

>
> Printing books and hosting the online copies doesn't happen for free. Nor
> does all the logistical and organizational overhead required to make sure
> that those things happen on schedule and with the right things in them.
>
Quite so. For the record, we originally submitted camera-ready copy for
"Fortran xxxx Explained", but switched a decade ago to using LaTex to
generate Postscript and/or PDF files. The last thing we want is anyone
messing with the code examples. We found LaTex a big improvement over SGML.

Regards,

Mike Metcalf


Gary L. Scott

unread,
May 14, 2006, 5:59:56 PM5/14/06
to
Michael Metcalf wrote:

I can imagine it being better than SGML. SGML was basically a dumbed
down Script/GML.

> Regards,
>
> Mike Metcalf

Jan Vorbrüggen

unread,
May 15, 2006, 10:22:03 AM5/15/06
to
> Actually I am saying this tongue in cheek, as I still use Latex from
> time to time, though I feel a bit of a dinosaur in doing so. There are
> some features that none of the modern word-processors do as well. The
> main problem I've found, as a user of Tex/Latex for at least 20 years,
> is that it's well-nigh impossible to get secretaries to cope with Latex.

Try LyX on your secretary.

I think a large fraction of the problem is to adapt the new user's mindset.
If you grow up on WYSIWYG - or rather WYSIAYG (A for all) - you loose sight
of the simple fact that a document has a structure, and that the formatting
should reflect that structure and not something else. That, of course,
necessitates actually _thinking_ about said structure...

Jan

Dave Thompson

unread,
May 21, 2006, 8:45:55 PM5/21/06
to
On Fri, 12 May 2006 08:01:52 -0700, nos...@see.signature (Richard E
Maine) wrote:

> Joost <jv...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > The official version is just scanned txt.

<snip>


> 3. As you noticed, the copy from ANSI is scanned. I wish they had
> contacted me (the editor) for a pdf instead, but there is a long (and
> continuing - sigh :-() history of internal communication problems in
> ISO. Instead of communicating with me for a pdf, which I could have
> given them, they scanned a paper copy that I had previously sent them.
>

Although they apparently OCRed it, at least at some point.

I bought from the ANSI webstore in 2002, just because I liked the idea
of having the official version at the INCITS(?) cheap price, and what
I got is 31,690,055 bytes and is searchable and cut-and-pasteable
-- although the typography often gets messed up, but for Usenet
it is discarded anyway and must be manually marked if needed.

Of course as you note the committee versions start out machinable.

- David.Thompson1 at worldnet.att.net

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages