OT: Understand for Fortran
gary.l...@lmco.com
http://www.scitools.com/products/understand/fortran/product.php
Thanks
dpb
> Anybody have any experience with Understand for Fortran?
>
> http://www.scitools.com/products/understand/fortran/product.php
Been three or so years, but I used it with a decent-sized code (of
questionable heritage :) ) with very good results in enabling me to
deconstruct the structure enough to be able to figure out how to
subsequently make some fairly major modifications and extensions.
I have since essentially retired so no more recent experience but at
that time they were rebuilding at least weekly with enhancements, bug
fixes, etc., and were impressive in speed with which the comments/
questions/requests were handled. As I say, it's now been a while but
if they're anything at all now like they were then, I recommend them
and it quite highly.
Gary Scott
IVF + GINO + UF.
--
Gary Scott
mailto:garylscott@sbcglobal dot 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
If you want to do the impossible, don't hire an expert because he knows
it can't be done.
-- Henry Ford
Wade Ward
"Gary Scott" <garyl...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:f7ATh.8043$u03....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
> dpb wrote:
>> On Apr 12, 3:17 pm, gary.l.sc...@lmco.com wrote:
>>
>>>Anybody have any experience with Understand for Fortran?
>>>
>>>http://www.scitools.com/products/understand/fortran/product.php
>>
>>
>> Been three or so years, but I used it with a decent-sized code (of
>> questionable heritage :) ) with very good results in enabling me to
>> deconstruct the structure enough to be able to figure out how to
>> subsequently make some fairly major modifications and extensions.
>>
>> I have since essentially retired so no more recent experience but at
>> that time they were rebuilding at least weekly with enhancements, bug
>> fixes, etc., and were impressive in speed with which the comments/
>> questions/requests were handled. As I say, it's now been a while but
>> if they're anything at all now like they were then, I recommend them
>> and it quite highly.
>>
> Thanks, it looks nice. Quite pricey though. Don't know if I can afford
> IVF + GINO + UF.
windows. There's lots of ways to spend a thousand bucks. I have yet to
divine what all is in the child windows on the screendump that the main site
shows.
--
WW
dpb
> dpb wrote:
> > On Apr 12, 3:17 pm, gary.l.sc...@lmco.com wrote:
>
> >>Anybody have any experience with Understand for Fortran?
>
> >>http://www.scitools.com/products/understand/fortran/product.php
>
> > Been three or so years, but I used it with a decent-sized code (of
> > questionable heritage :) ) with very good results in enabling me to
> > deconstruct the structure enough to be able to figure out how to
> > subsequently make some fairly major modifications and extensions.
>
> > I have since essentially retired so no more recent experience but at
> > that time they were rebuilding at least weekly with enhancements, bug
> > fixes, etc., and were impressive in speed with which the comments/
> > questions/requests were handled. As I say, it's now been a while but
> > if they're anything at all now like they were then, I recommend them
> > and it quite highly.
>
> Thanks, it looks nice. Quite pricey though. Don't know if I can afford
> IVF + GINO + UF.
>
--
I ken... :(
I'd only mention that if you _need_ a similar tool to UF, then the $$
spent will undoubtedly seem a minor inconvenience in the end. If you
don't have such baggage code to try to make something of, it probably
won't seem like a good investment.
I'm sure there are other tools that are similar capabilities, but
unfortunately for the purpose here I haven't used any others so can't
really make any comparisons... :(
As noted before, the thing that was really the selling point to me was
the support/response from SciTools when I asked a couple of questions/
made a request while still using the trial version.
gary.l...@lmco.com
I do see some slightly questionable terminology used on their web site
that makes me think they aren't really up to date on the latest
Fortran standards. Quite a few FORTRAN 77isms and I believe I saw use
of an extension somewhere as if it was standard. I may take some time
this weekend to point some of those out to them.
dpb
That's quite possible -- certainly the code I used it with had no
modern flair to commend it! :) The problems with it were the classic
"sphagetti" calls combined with rampant COMMON and similar signs of
research laboratory code written by probably 50 graduate students from
10 universities over 20 years on DOE-sponsored grants on top of the
original principal scientist/engineer's thrown-together demonstration
code...
I wasn't particularly concerned or interested in the level of
compliance to Standards and it was, despite the lack of structure or
any semblance of a design, pretty generic code. I had no difficulties
in that regard. What UF would do with highly system-dependent code
from one of the old mainframe architectures or extensive VAX or other
extensions I don't know. Or, for that matter, new code from F95 w/
implementation of F2003 features could be even more of an issue for
that matter, I hadn't really thought of it outside the context of
legacy code.
Would certainly be an interesting exercise to see what sort of
response one got/gets from them. I'm realizing that time has gone by
and it was even farther back when I actually used it -- would have
been about 2000 and I believe it was still pretty new at the time. I
presume the market for the Fortran version is probably pretty small as
compared to the other languages so whether they're still as energetic
on that side as previously would be good test.