Re: J3's workings

Beliavsky wrote:

Steve Lionel wrote:

<snip>

We do hear a lot from our customers, but I'd go along with what Bob
says. Vendors have no special influence at the standards level and it
seems to me that some on the committee like inventing new language
(especially if it resembles C++) and have little stomach for working
out the issues with and refining the existing language.

As I hear it, the vendor representatives do try their best to make
known their customers' desires - but it rarely helps.


Question for Steve Lionel (Intel) and Robert Corbett (SUN): what are
the most commonly requested features that are not in Fortran 2003 or
the F2008 draft?

As standards of a programming language evolve, the features added
become less obviously necessary, since otherwise they would have been
added previously. Maybe after Fortran 2003, the language should evolve
by having compiler writers, both commercial and volunteer, (gfortran
and g95) add extensions that they think are important based on user
requests. If those features are adopted by several compilers, they
could later be standardized. Compiler-specific extensions do have
downsides, but they may not be worse than having a language standard
that gets too far ahead of compiler writers and users.

I think it is just as important to consider the reasons/features that are present in other languages that draw programmers to them and away from Fortran. We should be trying to bring them <back> to Fortran, not just considering the captive audience.

--

Gary Scott
mailto:garylscott@sbcglobal dot net

Fortran Library: http://www.fortranlib.com

Support the Original G95 Project: http://www.g95.org
-OR-
Support the GNU GFortran Project: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/index.html

Why are there two? God only knows.


If you want to do the impossible, don't hire an expert because he knows it can't be done.

-- Henry Ford
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Case sensitivity
    ... Fortran survived from inertia, not fashion. ... Inertia driven largely by legacy code, along with the fact that for a long time it was the "lingua franca": the only language that you could choose for a collaborative project and be sure that everyone could use it. ... few years managers find fault with the current front-running language ... Although there were and are indisputably folks who don't like these standards, the fact is that the vast majority of implementors immediately adopted Forth-94 and have been very happy with it. ...
    (comp.lang.forth)
  • Re: When will this ng come to accept that Fortran needs to go "back to the future" ?
    ... The "Classical Fortran" guys (I never thought much of F and am glad ... Well, the F programming language was a step in that direction, but it ... I suspect that in some respects the standards writers are out of step ... with the compiler writers. ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: F200x (was Re: When to expect a F2003 compiler?)
    ... >>That was somewhat true for the first Fortran and Cobol standards. ... > are in regular use by thousands of programmers across a broad spectrum ... > It's good for some experience with a language feature to be accumulated ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: R6RS Ratified
    ... 20 years of history of formally developed language ... Economically speaking, formal language standards ... sell a new commodity to corporate customers. ... Formalization ...
    (comp.lang.scheme)
  • Re: How Common Lisp sucks
    ... certainly a mechanism for creating defacto standards. ... libraries that work across implementations that provide de facto ... which also mean an increase in expressive power when added to Common Lisp.) ... language and making changes to the language. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)