Surprise

Gosh, this was a big surprise. I though Fortran was dead as a Dodo!
Why are people still using it? I was a great fan of it until about
1997 when I moved to Matlab...then LabView. Why the need to resurect
Fortran? Yes, I know C is shite, has no complex numbers etc but that's
not an excuse.


K.

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:18:42 -0600, "J. F. Cornwall"
<JCornwall@cox.net> wrote:

>kronecker@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> Gosh, this was a big surprise. I though Fortran was dead as a Dodo!
>> Why are people still using it? I was a great fan of it until about
>> 1997 when I moved to Matlab...then LabView. Why the need to resurect
>> Fortran? Yes, I know C is shite, has no complex numbers etc but that's
>> not an excuse.
>>
>>
>> K.
>
>Resurrect? Riggggghhhhhttttttttt.......
>
>Nice trolling attempt. Well, actually, it was a rather lame attempt.
>On the off chance you were actually serious, we're still using Fortran
>because (a) it does what we want it to do, (b) we have millions of lines
>of code fully operational and we have no need or desire to change it to
>some other language, and (c) it's far from dead, has never been anywhere
>close to dead, and is not a candidate for being dead anytime in the near
>(by geologic scales) future.
>
>J.

I always liked the part about fortran 'being dead' ;-)
It was allegely 'dead' in the 70ties, then in the 80ties, then in the
....

But, better to stop here, and not to give the troll any more
encouragement.

Luka

Luka Djigas wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:18:42 -0600, "J. F. Cornwall"
> <JCornwall@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> kronecker@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>> Gosh, this was a big surprise. I though Fortran was dead as a Dodo!
>>> Why are people still using it? I was a great fan of it until about
>>> 1997 when I moved to Matlab...then LabView. Why the need to resurect
>>> Fortran? Yes, I know C is shite, has no complex numbers etc but that's
>>> not an excuse.
>>>
>>>
>>> K.
>> Resurrect? Riggggghhhhhttttttttt.......
>>
>> Nice trolling attempt. Well, actually, it was a rather lame attempt.
>> On the off chance you were actually serious, we're still using Fortran
>> because (a) it does what we want it to do, (b) we have millions of lines
>> of code fully operational and we have no need or desire to change it to
>> some other language, and (c) it's far from dead, has never been anywhere
>> close to dead, and is not a candidate for being dead anytime in the near
>> (by geologic scales) future.
>>
>> J.
>
> I always liked the part about fortran 'being dead' ;-)
> It was allegely 'dead' in the 70ties, then in the 80ties, then in the
> ...
>
> But, better to stop here, and not to give the troll any more
> encouragement.
>
At least, this guy admits to being nearly as poorly informed about C as
about Fortran.

kronecker@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Gosh, this was a big surprise. I though Fortran was dead as a Dodo!
> Why are people still using it? I was a great fan of it until about
> 1997 when I moved to Matlab...then LabView. Why the need to resurect
> Fortran? Yes, I know C is shite, has no complex numbers etc but that's
> not an excuse.
>
>
> K.

Resurrect? Riggggghhhhhttttttttt.......

Nice trolling attempt. Well, actually, it was a rather lame attempt.
On the off chance you were actually serious, we're still using Fortran
because (a) it does what we want it to do, (b) we have millions of lines
of code fully operational and we have no need or desire to change it to
some other language, and (c) it's far from dead, has never been anywhere
close to dead, and is not a candidate for being dead anytime in the near
(by geologic scales) future.

J.

kronecker@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Gosh, this was a big surprise. I though Fortran was dead as a Dodo!
> Why are people still using it? I was a great fan of it until about
> 1997 when I moved to Matlab...then LabView. Why the need to resurect
> Fortran? Yes, I know C is shite, has no complex numbers etc but that's
> not an excuse.
>
>
> K.
It does what I want. Is reason enough.

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> kronecker@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
>> Gosh, this was a big surprise. I though Fortran was dead as a Dodo!
>> Why are people still using it? I was a great fan of it until about
>> 1997 when I moved to Matlab...then LabView. Why the need to resurect
>> Fortran?
>
>
> Interpreted languages like Matlab have many uses, but in many
> cases they aren't fast enough. Labview has completely different
> uses.
>
>> Yes, I know C is shite, has no complex numbers etc but that's
>> not an excuse.
>
>
> No it isn't. As of C99, C now has complex numbers.

Well, it's still shite, but for other reasons.

>
> -- glen
>


--

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

kronecker@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Gosh, this was a big surprise. I though Fortran was dead as a Dodo!
> Why are people still using it? I was a great fan of it until about
> 1997 when I moved to Matlab...then LabView. Why the need to resurect
> Fortran?

Interpreted languages like Matlab have many uses, but in many
cases they aren't fast enough. Labview has completely different
uses.

> Yes, I know C is shite, has no complex numbers etc but that's
> not an excuse.

No it isn't. As of C99, C now has complex numbers.

-- glen

On 2008-08-19, kronecker@yahoo.co.uk <kronecker@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> I know C is shite, has no complex numbers

Actually, C has complex numbers since the C99 standard.

On Aug 20, 5:29 am, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> kronec...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > Gosh, this was a big surprise. I though Fortran was dead as a Dodo!
> > Why are people still using it? I was a great fan of it until about
> > 1997 when I moved to Matlab...then LabView. Why the need to resurect
> > Fortran?
>
> Interpreted languages like Matlab have many uses, but in many
> cases they aren't fast enough. Labview has completely different
> uses.
>
> > Yes, I know C is shite, has no complex numbers etc but that's
> > not an excuse.
>
> No it isn't. As of C99, C now has complex numbers.
>
> -- glen

Not at all. I moved from Fortran to C and it was crap. No complex
numbers. This was around 1987 of course. Having to write my own
structures of complex numbers was just daft whenyou had them built in.
I am not a troll and have used Fortran for around 20 years ...in fact
more like 25 years. Is it now OO?


K.

In article <17c84186-4008-4532-863f-7ac4e7dc0b0c@a8g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
kronecker@yahoo.co.uk writes:


> Is it now OO?

Yes, for some measure of OO.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortran

to re-educate yourself.

--
Steve
http://troutmask.apl.washington.edu/~kargl/