Re: Compaq Visual Fortran discontinued: upgrade to Intel Visual Fortran?

"Duane Bozarth" <dpbozarth@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:438C83E3.76058372@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> NN wrote:
>>
>> Thank you very much, everybody, for your responses so far. While
>> interesting, I regret to say that none of the responses so far has been
>> very
>> helpful for my decision and I'm sure that's entirely my fault for not
>> being
>> specific enough. Let me try again.
>> (1) More speed is nice, but it's not really an issue since I learned a
>> long time ago that this can easily become a game of diminishing returns.
>> I'll gladly sacrifice a factor of 2 in speed if I can have code that's
>> easy
>> to debug and maintain.
>> (2) Is the integrated editor/debugger environment of IVF
>> similar/different
>> from CVF? If different, what are the differences?
>> (3) Does windows-specific code compile (i.e., code that uses graphics
>> routines)? Are there any problems linking the CVF-specific libraries? (Or
>> are there similar ones in IVF?)
>> (4) Are there other issues with code portability?
>
> I'd think the thing to do would be to download the trial version and
> play w/ it some. My understanding is that you have to have the MS
> Visual Studio in addition to the Intel-supplied compiler/components to
> get the IDE as MS chose to not license it to Intel for the integration
> w/ the compiler as was done w/ CVF.

Yes, tried to do that, of course, but, as you said, it won't work without
the MS IDE. Strangely enough, the compiler won't even run from the command
line. Perhaps, there might be a way to integrate it with the IDE of CVF, but
I don't know how. (Anybody know if that's possible?)



>
>> I should say, that for my present needs CVF is perfectly okay. My
>> question
>> therefore is: Should I shell out $650 now for an upgrade to IVF, to
>> preserve
>> the option of further upgrades down the road, or should I simply stick
>> with
>> CVF for now and perhaps at some later stage, if the need arises, buy a
>> full
>> version of IVF.
> ...
>
> I'd say only you can answer the last question, but unless you're working
> on a commercial product it would seem quite unneeded.

Well, that would be my first reaction as well, that I don't need it right
now, but maybe I'm missing some compelling reasons. That's why I posed the
question to this forum.

Thanks.
--hh



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Compaq Visual Fortran discontinued: upgrade to Intel Visual Fortran?
    ... > Thank you very much, everybody, for your responses so far. ... > Does windows-specific code compile (i.e., ... > are there similar ones in IVF?) ... w/ the compiler as was done w/ CVF. ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: Compaq Visual Fortran discontinued: upgrade to Intel Visual Fortran?
    ... Thank you very much, everybody, for your responses so far. ... Is the integrated editor/debugger environment of IVF similar/different ... that for my present needs CVF is perfectly okay. ... > an upgrade to Intel Visual Fortran 9.0. ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: bye bye CVF
    ... development team, based on CVF sources, and there are again some who seem to view the transition as some sort of personal betrayal. ... really big plus in favor of IVF when the time comes. ... I'm pleased as punch that the compiler is now derived from DVF/CVF and that the ~DEC/Compaq compiler team is intact and supporting it. ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: On the future of Compaq Visual Fortran !
    ... | finally abandoned CVF altogether. ... Intel has made a tactical ... That was one option -- the other was to make a better compiler than ... 48 MB under IVF. ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Interaction between CVF and IVF?
    ... I'm running into a problem with CVF that never occurred before and I'm ... the compiler only flags these ... it might be some kind of interaction between the CVF and IVF ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)