4 ms·

Opinion HN: Fortran 90 (F90) doesn't look terrible

monopolemagnet 11y ago
As opposed to this F66 example: http://www.fortran.bcs.org/2005/fortran/img10.html http://www.fortran.bcs.org/2005/fortran/img10.html
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  I'm not totally sure it's fair to bring up a version of a language that is twenty four years earlier than the one under discussion. (and for a thought to make some people feel old, 1966 is closer to 1990 than 1990 is to today).
  - monopolemagnet 11y ago
    I am. The point is to show Fortran 90 evolved a lot, which is indeed, a good thing. Remember, F66 was influenced by Speedcoding which was, in turn, influenced by assembly, because practical, high-level languages were still in the learning phase. In other words, early Fortran (e.g., FORTRAN for the IBM 704 on punchcards, which my mom coded in at NUQ) was just barely higher level than assembly, but later versions improved to gain additional features which made coding in it less onerous and more productive. Age is an irrelevant, consumerism fallacy; the contextual history including the players involved, machines available, problems to solve and lessons learned, is far more important. More (salient links from various sources): Generally - https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortranStandards https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortranStandards F60 - https://www.fortran.com/FortranForTheIBM704.pdf https://www.fortran.com/FortranForTheIBM704.pdf F66 - ftp://ftp.nag.co.uk/sc22wg5/ARCHIVE/Fortran66.pdf F77 - http://web.stanford.edu/class/me200c/tutorial_77/ http://web.stanford.edu/class/me200c/tutorial_77/ - http://www.fortran.com/fortran/F77_std/rjcnf.html http://www.fortran.com/fortran/F77_std/rjcnf.html F90 - http://www.nccs.nasa.gov/tutorials/f90studentnotes.pdf http://www.nccs.nasa.gov/tutorials/f90studentnotes.pdf - ftp://ftp.nag.co.uk/sc22wg5/N1801-N1850/N1830.pdf - http://www.j3-fortran.org/doc/year/10/10-007.pdf http://www.j3-fortran.org/doc/year/10/10-007.pdf - http://www.fortran90.org/ http://www.fortran90.org/ F95 - http://www.j3-fortran.org/doc/year/04/04-007.pdf http://www.j3-fortran.org/doc/year/04/04-007.pdf F2003 - http://www.j3-fortran.org/doc/year/04/04-007.pdf http://www.j3-fortran.org/doc/year/04/04-007.pdf F2008 - http://fortranwiki.org/fortran/show/Fortran+2008 http://fortranwiki.org/fortran/show/Fortran+2008
spapin 11y ago
One problem I find in fortran is that subroutines quickly have a lot of arguments. In this example, glint have 30ish. I have seen fortran subroutines in the aerospace industry with more than 100 arguments.
- monopolemagnet 11y ago
  Oh god. Reminds me of simulated processor pipeline stages (VHDL, etc.), which tend of have a huge amount of state. I'm no Fortran expert. Were there no composite types (i.e., structures or tuples) at the time or other reasons to do that (i.e., code testing tools)? Edit: Last q: Yes, as a vendor extension https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gfortran/STRUCTURE-and-RECORD.html https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gfortran/STRUCTURE-and-RECORD...

As opposed to this F66 example: http://www.fortran.bcs.org/2005/fortran/img10.html http://www.fortran.bcs.org/2005/fortran/img10.html

GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
I'm not totally sure it's fair to bring up a version of a language that is twenty four years earlier than the one under discussion. (and for a thought to make some people feel old, 1966 is closer to 1990 than 1990 is to today).
- monopolemagnet 11y ago
  I am. The point is to show Fortran 90 evolved a lot, which is indeed, a good thing. Remember, F66 was influenced by Speedcoding which was, in turn, influenced by assembly, because practical, high-level languages were still in the learning phase. In other words, early Fortran (e.g., FORTRAN for the IBM 704 on punchcards, which my mom coded in at NUQ) was just barely higher level than assembly, but later versions improved to gain additional features which made coding in it less onerous and more productive. Age is an irrelevant, consumerism fallacy; the contextual history including the players involved, machines available, problems to solve and lessons learned, is far more important. More (salient links from various sources): Generally - https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortranStandards https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortranStandards F60 - https://www.fortran.com/FortranForTheIBM704.pdf https://www.fortran.com/FortranForTheIBM704.pdf F66 - ftp://ftp.nag.co.uk/sc22wg5/ARCHIVE/Fortran66.pdf F77 - http://web.stanford.edu/class/me200c/tutorial_77/ http://web.stanford.edu/class/me200c/tutorial_77/ - http://www.fortran.com/fortran/F77_std/rjcnf.html http://www.fortran.com/fortran/F77_std/rjcnf.html F90 - http://www.nccs.nasa.gov/tutorials/f90studentnotes.pdf http://www.nccs.nasa.gov/tutorials/f90studentnotes.pdf - ftp://ftp.nag.co.uk/sc22wg5/N1801-N1850/N1830.pdf - http://www.j3-fortran.org/doc/year/10/10-007.pdf http://www.j3-fortran.org/doc/year/10/10-007.pdf - http://www.fortran90.org/ http://www.fortran90.org/ F95 - http://www.j3-fortran.org/doc/year/04/04-007.pdf http://www.j3-fortran.org/doc/year/04/04-007.pdf F2003 - http://www.j3-fortran.org/doc/year/04/04-007.pdf http://www.j3-fortran.org/doc/year/04/04-007.pdf F2008 - http://fortranwiki.org/fortran/show/Fortran+2008 http://fortranwiki.org/fortran/show/Fortran+2008

spapin 11y ago

One problem I find in fortran is that subroutines quickly have a lot of arguments. In this example, glint have 30ish. I have seen fortran subroutines in the aerospace industry with more than 100 arguments.

monopolemagnet 11y ago
Oh god. Reminds me of simulated processor pipeline stages (VHDL, etc.), which tend of have a huge amount of state. I'm no Fortran expert. Were there no composite types (i.e., structures or tuples) at the time or other reasons to do that (i.e., code testing tools)? Edit: Last q: Yes, as a vendor extension https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gfortran/STRUCTURE-and-RECORD.html https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gfortran/STRUCTURE-and-RECORD...