Re: Structure of large link libraries in f95

Richard E Maine wrote:


Compile your code and put it in a library the same way you do now. Then
make a module with nothing but interface blocks.

They would then have to be maintained, since I am in the habit of monkeying with my code, even in the link libraries. Even if I could INCLUDE the f77 files, I would have to split out the routines that I was monkeying with into a separate smaller "unstable" module so as not to have to recompile everything after each change. Things could be automated, but I'm not a makefile guru. It took me years to get my f77 makefiles refined to the point that everything is automatic, and with modules I would have to start over. At least with gfortran and g95 available, I don't have to worry about portability of makefiles. (I assume that with their common heritage, makefiles are portable between those two, and in any case the whole compiler is portable.)

I don't like burning bridges behind me, or discarding an old and comfortable pair of shoes. From f77 I can move either to f95 or to C (via f2c). Who can tell whether the next math package that I badly want will be written in f95, C, or even f77? Arguably, f77 is still the most flexible for public domain code, simply because of the availability of f2c.
.