Re: Converting fixed-to-free format
- From: Joe Krahn <jkrahn@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 20:08:34 GMT
Ken Plotkin wrote:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 18:07:42 GMT, Joe Krahn <jkrahn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:It sounds like you are saying Fortran is only alive now to keep all that archaic code useful. If that's all Fortran is to you, then it's already dead.
[snip]
having to fix manually like REAL X(1). Then we could think about the future of Fortran without worrying so much about billions of lines of old code.
Those billions of lines of existing code *are* the future of Fortran.
Every step taken toward deliberate incompatibility is another nail in
the coffin.
Ken Plotkin
Besides, with a good archaic-to-modern Fortran converter, archaic humans can still write archaic code. My primary point is that there should be no need to worry about mixing archaic and modern code into the same source file, and an archaic-to-modern converter would keep all existing cond working indefinitely, without compiler develeopers having to deal with all the extra effort.
Joe
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Converting fixed-to-free format
- From: Michael Prager
- Re: Converting fixed-to-free format
- From: Ken Plotkin
- Re: Converting fixed-to-free format
- From: Gary L. Scott
- Re: Converting fixed-to-free format
- References:
- Converting fixed-to-free format
- From: Joe Krahn
- Re: Converting fixed-to-free format
- From: Ken Plotkin
- Converting fixed-to-free format
- Prev by Date: Re: Converting fixed-to-free format
- Next by Date: Re: Variable length/precision formats?
- Previous by thread: Re: Converting fixed-to-free format
- Next by thread: Re: Converting fixed-to-free format
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|