Re: IMPLICIT NONE (F2k8+/-)

<snip>
> Again, it impacts nobody in any significant way, just add a compile time
> switch. Nobody will be inordinately placed in hardship. It isn't even
> big enough of a deal to add a switch as to even argue against it.

On the contrary, it does impact. Correctly written code (with explicit
typing) gains no benefit whatsoever from IMPLICIT NONE, as all the
declarations are made - it only helps lazy and incompetent typists who can't
spell - although to be fair, that does include the majority of programmers!
To make it the default disadvantages those of us who like implicit typing -
and I surely can't be the last one of those alive, although I may well be
amongst the last.

My experience of large applications (not great, admittedly) is that the
coding rules are strict, and the routines are exhaustively tested before
being released - again, not an environment where the need to catch mis-keyed
variable names is pressing. The real need (as far as I understand) for
totally explicit typing is in interfacing with a different language which
lacks the concept of implicit type - and I avoid that. It probably isn't
easy to avoid in big systems.

I also forgot to mention that LOGICAL and imaginary variables are always
explicitly declared, and also that named COMMON block lengths are usually
checked for consistency, so that even more of the potential errors are
trapped than I at first mentioned.

The point of my reply was that the status quo provides equally for those who
like implicit typing, and those who don't, so that to change the standard to
effectively negate previous standards seems to me to be perverse. I wasn't
arguing for the abolition of IMPLICIT NONE, only against making it the
standard.

Regards

Eddie B.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: IMPLICIT NONE (F2k8+/-)
    ... It isn't even big enough of a deal to add a switch as to even argue against it. ... Correctly written code (with explicit typing) gains no benefit whatsoever from IMPLICIT NONE, as all the declarations are made - it only helps lazy and incompetent typists who can't spell - although to be fair, that does include the majority of programmers! ... The point of my reply was that the status quo provides equally for those who like implicit typing, and those who don't, so that to change the standard to effectively negate previous standards seems to me to be perverse. ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: Some thoughts on VB9
    ... implicit typing is very useful and makes more sense. ... : Dim s = 1 ... The fact that implicit types encourage laziness ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb)
  • Re: IMPLICIT NONE (F2k8+/-)
    ... >> like implicit typing, and those who don't, so that to change the standard to ... that would provide the appropriate compiler action. ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: Problem when creating a.out and -convert big_endian compiler option
    ... Fortran programs really means. ... of "implicit typing" where the first letter of a name ... Fortran has had a statement "implicit none" to disable the implicit ... First letter in, ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCQkckRCRGJGsbKEI=?=
    ... Nobody ain't mentioned yet (perhaps taking it as implicit) that in such ... In fact Japanese Laws have been written with ... Andreas Rusterholz ...
    (sci.lang.japan)