Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.programming > #491 > unrolled thread

fortran 77 errors

Back to article view | Back to comp.programming

Contents

  fortran 77 errors "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-06-22 16:43 -0400
    Re: fortran 77 errors James Waldby <not@valid.invalid> - 2011-06-22 21:18 +0000
      Re: fortran 77 errors "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-06-22 18:31 -0400
        Re: fortran 77 errors Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-06-22 17:21 -0700
          Re: fortran 77 errors "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-06-22 20:50 -0400
            Re: fortran 77 errors Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-23 14:58 +1200
              Re: fortran 77 errors "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-06-23 00:27 -0400
                Re: fortran 77 errors blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-06-23 17:07 +0000
                  Re: fortran 77 errors "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-06-23 16:53 -0400
                    Re: fortran 77 errors Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-06-23 14:05 -0700
                      Re: fortran 77 errors "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-06-24 17:58 -0400
                      Re: fortran 77 errors "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> - 2011-06-27 17:04 +1000
            Re: fortran 77 errors Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-06-23 12:34 -0700
          Re: fortran 77 errors blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-06-23 17:06 +0000
          Re: fortran 77 errors "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> - 2011-06-27 17:01 +1000
            Re: fortran 77 errors Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-06-28 06:39 -0700
    Re: fortran 77 errors free@securityaudit.val.newsbank.net (Dick Wesseling) - 2011-06-23 00:43 +0000
      Re: fortran 77 errors "Ant" <not@home.today> - 2011-06-23 02:38 +0100
      Re: fortran 77 errors "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> - 2011-06-27 17:07 +1000
    Re: fortran 77 errors Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2011-06-23 00:47 -0700
      Re: fortran 77 errors Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2011-06-23 00:55 -0700
        Re: fortran 77 errors "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-06-23 04:16 -0400
          Re: fortran 77 errors Ike Naar <ike@sverige.freeshell.org> - 2011-06-23 09:23 +0000
            Re: fortran 77 errors Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-06-23 06:55 -0700
              Re: fortran 77 errors Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-06-23 07:02 -0700
              Re: fortran 77 errors Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-06-23 15:22 +0100
                Re: fortran 77 errors Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-06-23 08:19 -0700
                  Re: fortran 77 errors Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2011-06-23 08:52 -0700
                    Re: fortran 77 errors blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-06-23 17:32 +0000
                      Re: fortran 77 errors Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-06-23 22:39 +0100
                        Re: fortran 77 errors blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-06-24 20:08 +0000
                  Re: fortran 77 errors Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-06-23 19:38 +0100
                Re: fortran 77 errors "osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2011-06-23 10:25 -0500
                  Re: fortran 77 errors Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-06-23 09:47 -0700
                  Re: fortran 77 errors blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-06-23 17:30 +0000
                  Re: fortran 77 errors "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-06-23 17:30 -0400
                  Re: fortran 77 errors Dan <dantex1@aol.com> - 2011-06-25 10:10 -0700
                  Re: fortran 77 errors "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-06-28 11:21 -0400
                    Re: fortran 77 errors Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-06-28 09:40 -0700
                      Re: fortran 77 errors "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-06-28 17:59 -0400
                        Re: fortran 77 errors Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-06-28 15:21 -0700
                Re: fortran 77 errors "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> - 2011-06-28 00:43 +1000
                  Re: fortran 77 errors Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-06-28 11:40 +0100
                    Re: fortran 77 errors "robin" <robin51@dodo.com.au> - 2011-07-05 09:06 +1000
            Re: fortran 77 errors "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> - 2011-06-28 00:41 +1000
          Re: fortran 77 errors Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-06-23 12:12 +0100
          Re: fortran 77 errors Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2011-06-23 06:52 -0700
            Re: fortran 77 errors "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-06-23 17:45 -0400
              Re: fortran 77 errors Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-06-23 15:30 -0700
              Re: fortran 77 errors Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2011-06-23 17:25 -0700
                Re: fortran 77 errors Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-06-24 10:35 -0700
                Re: fortran 77 errors blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-06-24 20:09 +0000
              Re: fortran 77 errors Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-06-24 01:38 +0100
      Re: fortran 77 errors "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> - 2011-06-27 17:10 +1000
    Re: fortran 77 errors kym@kymhorsell.com - 2011-06-23 21:23 +0000
    Re: fortran 77 errors "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> - 2011-06-27 17:13 +1000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#501

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 00:47:17 -0700, Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>c a simple hello world program c in Fortran c  10   program helloworld
> 20   print *,'hello world'
> 30   stop
> 40   end

 I don't know how that got messed up in the post.

c a simple hello world program
c in fortran
c 
 10   program helloworld
 20   print *,'hello world'
 30   stop
 40   end

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#502

Geoff wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 00:47:17 -0700, Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> c a simple hello world program c in Fortran c  10   program
>> helloworld 20   print *,'hello world'
>> 30   stop
>> 40   end
>
> I don't know how that got messed up in the post.
>
> c a simple hello world program
> c in fortran
> c
> 10   program helloworld
> 20   print *,'hello world'
> 30   stop
> 40   end

    I didn't know there were line numbers in fortran like in basic.

Bill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#503

On 2011-06-23, Bill Cunningham <nospam@nspam.invalid> wrote:
>     I didn't know there were line numbers in fortran like in basic.

The numbers in columns 2-5 are more like labels, they're not really linenumbers.
There can be lines that don't have a label;
and the numbers don't need to be increasing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#506

On 6/23/2011 2:23 AM, Ike Naar wrote:
> On 2011-06-23, Bill Cunningham<nospam@nspam.invalid>  wrote:
>>      I didn't know there were line numbers in fortran like in basic.
>
> The numbers in columns 2-5 are more like labels, they're not really linenumbers.
> There can be lines that don't have a label;
> and the numbers don't need to be increasing.

Indeed. In all the Fortran programs I've read or written, very few lines
have labels. I would not expect to see any labels at all in a simple
"hello world" program. I think Geoff may have confused Fortran and Basic.

Patricia

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#507

On 6/23/2011 6:55 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> On 6/23/2011 2:23 AM, Ike Naar wrote:
>> On 2011-06-23, Bill Cunningham<nospam@nspam.invalid> wrote:
>>> I didn't know there were line numbers in fortran like in basic.
>>
>> The numbers in columns 2-5 are more like labels, they're not really
>> linenumbers.
>> There can be lines that don't have a label;
>> and the numbers don't need to be increasing.
>
> Indeed. In all the Fortran programs I've read or written, very few lines
> have labels. I would not expect to see any labels at all in a simple
> "hello world" program. I think Geoff may have confused Fortran and Basic.

Or, seeing his later message, maybe the writers of the interactive
Fortran Geoff used based it on an interactive Basic, and kept the Basic
line numbering.

Patricia

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#508

Patricia Shanahan wrote:

> Indeed. In all the Fortran programs I've read or written, very few lines
> have labels. I would not expect to see any labels at all in a simple
> "hello world" program. I think Geoff may have confused Fortran and Basic.

Not necessarily.  To the best of my knowledge the code snippet that Geoff 
presented is Fortran77 and not Basic, although it was poorly pasted. The 
comment line starts with a 'c' character in the first column, which means 
it's a Fortran 77 comment, the line numbers start at the 2nd column, which 
is how labels are defined in Fortran77, and the instruction line starts at 
the 7th column, which is exactly where Fortran77 instructions start.  

Granted, the last time I've looked at fortran77 code was aroun 10 years ago, 
and things are a bit fuzzy right now.  Yet, the code does conform to 
fortan77, in spite of the paste errors.


Rui Maciel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#509

On 6/23/2011 7:22 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
> Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>
>> Indeed. In all the Fortran programs I've read or written, very few lines
>> have labels. I would not expect to see any labels at all in a simple
>> "hello world" program. I think Geoff may have confused Fortran and Basic.
>
> Not necessarily.  To the best of my knowledge the code snippet that Geoff
> presented is Fortran77 and not Basic, although it was poorly pasted. The
> comment line starts with a 'c' character in the first column, which means
> it's a Fortran 77 comment, the line numbers start at the 2nd column, which
> is how labels are defined in Fortran77, and the instruction line starts at
> the 7th column, which is exactly where Fortran77 instructions start.

To be a bit more precise, I meant "I think Geoff may have confused the
Fortran statement label rules with the Basic line numbering rules". I
agree that otherwise the posted code looks more like an attempt at
Fortran than Basic.

Patricia

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 08:19:49 -0700, Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org>
wrote:

>On 6/23/2011 7:22 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
>> Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>>
>>> Indeed. In all the Fortran programs I've read or written, very few lines
>>> have labels. I would not expect to see any labels at all in a simple
>>> "hello world" program. I think Geoff may have confused Fortran and Basic.
>>
>> Not necessarily.  To the best of my knowledge the code snippet that Geoff
>> presented is Fortran77 and not Basic, although it was poorly pasted. The
>> comment line starts with a 'c' character in the first column, which means
>> it's a Fortran 77 comment, the line numbers start at the 2nd column, which
>> is how labels are defined in Fortran77, and the instruction line starts at
>> the 7th column, which is exactly where Fortran77 instructions start.
>
>To be a bit more precise, I meant "I think Geoff may have confused the
>Fortran statement label rules with the Basic line numbering rules". I
>agree that otherwise the posted code looks more like an attempt at
>Fortran than Basic.
>

The code was copied from Bill's original post and edited with emacs
which enforced its own rules on formatting. I added the line numbers
because I remembered we had them back in the dim days of college. The
system was an Interdata model 4 and the Fortran was non-standard for
the era. It predated Fortran 77 and was not strict about formatting
output. I wasn't doing any BASIC programming until 1978 or so, on a
TRS-80 for fun.

FWIW, the code I posted compiles and runs on OS X with gfortran 4.2.1
build 5664.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#516

In article <upn607pod3lim761db8b7e9p614j97htl1@4ax.com>,
Geoff  <geoff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 08:19:49 -0700, Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org>
> wrote:
> 
> >On 6/23/2011 7:22 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
> >> Patricia Shanahan wrote:

[ snip ]

> >To be a bit more precise, I meant "I think Geoff may have confused the
> >Fortran statement label rules with the Basic line numbering rules". I
> >agree that otherwise the posted code looks more like an attempt at
> >Fortran than Basic.
> >
> 
> The code was copied from Bill's original post and edited with emacs
> which enforced its own rules on formatting. I added the line numbers
> because I remembered we had them back in the dim days of college. The
> system was an Interdata model 4 and the Fortran was non-standard for
> the era. It predated Fortran 77 and was not strict about formatting
> output. I wasn't doing any BASIC programming until 1978 or so, on a
> TRS-80 for fun.
> 
> FWIW, the code I posted compiles and runs on OS X with gfortran 4.2.1
> build 5664.
> 

For what it's worth, Fortran 77 supports both statement labels
*and* line numbers -- the latter being positioned after column 72 
and ignored by the compiler.  Line numbers were useful back in
the punched-card days; diligently numbering all the lines of one's
program meant that if one dropped the card deck containing the source
code, one could put the cards back in order using a card-sorting
machine on the columns (73-80) containing the line numbers.

Ah, the not-always-good old days!

-- 
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer:  I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#527

blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> writes:
<snip>
> For what it's worth, Fortran 77 supports both statement labels
> *and* line numbers -- the latter being positioned after column 72 
> and ignored by the compiler.  Line numbers were useful back in
> the punched-card days; diligently numbering all the lines of one's
> program meant that if one dropped the card deck containing the source
> code, one could put the cards back in order using a card-sorting
> machine on the columns (73-80) containing the line numbers.

These columns were not restricted to "line numbers".  For one thing, it
was common for them not to be sequential so that cards could be added
without renumbering everything, and the field often contained something
to identify the program.  That way, if you dropped a box with more than
one program in it, you could get it back into order in less than a day
and a half.

My speciality was to forget to flip the metal card catcher back after
removing a deck from the output hopper.  The next deck that went though
would then spray up into the room like geek confetti.  It was always an
un-sequenced deck.

> Ah, the not-always-good old days!

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#534

In article <0.35e0cd98d1ba5131b62a.20110623223910BST.8739j09qip.fsf@bsb.me.uk>,
Ben Bacarisse  <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
> blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> writes:
> <snip>
> > For what it's worth, Fortran 77 supports both statement labels
> > *and* line numbers -- the latter being positioned after column 72 
> > and ignored by the compiler.  Line numbers were useful back in
> > the punched-card days; diligently numbering all the lines of one's
> > program meant that if one dropped the card deck containing the source
> > code, one could put the cards back in order using a card-sorting
> > machine on the columns (73-80) containing the line numbers.
> 
> These columns were not restricted to "line numbers".  For one thing, it
> was common for them not to be sequential so that cards could be added
> without renumbering everything, 

Quite -- that's what I meant, though admittedly not what I said!
(Choosing a good increment between successive whatever-you-call-'ems
was sometimes tricky, too.)

> and the field often contained something
> to identify the program.  That way, if you dropped a box with more than
> one program in it, you could get it back into order in less than a day
> and a half.

Oh right -- I had forgotten that indeed it was typical for the "line
numbers" to also include alphabetic text identifying the program.

A quick Google search seems to confirm my recollection that these
things (text plus number) are called "sequence numbers".

I'm remembering too that some keypunches had features that would
to some extent automate producing sequence numbers.  I could be
wrong about that.

> My speciality was to forget to flip the metal card catcher back after
> removing a deck from the output hopper.  The next deck that went though
> would then spray up into the room like geek confetti.  It was always an
> un-sequenced deck.
> 
> > Ah, the not-always-good old days!

And you left my comment in for good reason.  :-)

By the time I started writing nontrivial programs (as opposed to
short homeworks and such), I had access to electronic editors [*],
so I don't have good war stories about cards.  But I can imagine.
I did have a summer job at which my tasks involved a bit of 
keypunching and the occasional use of a card sorter.  Those were
the days?

[*] Starting with the line editor available under MVS/TSO.
By today's standards it was unbelievably primitive, but compared
to cards, *WHAT* an improvement ....

"Thanks for the memories"?  

-- 
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer:  I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#517

Patricia Shanahan wrote:

> To be a bit more precise, I meant "I think Geoff may have confused the
> Fortran statement label rules with the Basic line numbering rules". I
> agree that otherwise the posted code looks more like an attempt at
> Fortran than Basic.

I see what you mean and you are right. 


Rui Maciel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#510

Various people wrote various things about various variants of Fortran:

This thread should demonstrate, Bill, that you are not going to have any 
experts to help you on Fortran.  At least on this newsgroup.  Many of us 
have used Fortran ( I have both used it and taught it in college - I 
remember the difficulty in finding a text book I really liked, even back 
then) but it was a long time ago and memories fade.  Any minute advantages 
that Fortran might have over C are overwhelmed by the lack of *current* 
expertise.

Either stick with C or else choose a modern language as an alternative. 
From what I have seen, I don't think a different language will help you at 
all. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#512

On 6/23/2011 8:25 AM, osmium wrote:
> Various people wrote various things about various variants of Fortran:
>
> This thread should demonstrate, Bill, that you are not going to have any
> experts to help you on Fortran.  At least on this newsgroup.  Many of us
> have used Fortran ( I have both used it and taught it in college - I
> remember the difficulty in finding a text book I really liked, even back
> then) but it was a long time ago and memories fade.  Any minute advantages
> that Fortran might have over C are overwhelmed by the lack of *current*
> expertise.

I'm a rather rusty expert. In the 1980's I worked on a Fortran 77
compiler. I had a copy of the standard, and knew it at the level of
being able to go straight to the page that covered an issue. In order to
get a compiler working it is necessary to study the whole language, not
just the frequently used features.

However, when I stopped working on compilers Fortran 90 was about to
come out. I know some of the ideas that were being worked on, but not
the final resolution. I have not done significant Fortran programming
since then.

In any case, I'm dubious about whether the OP is likely to benefit from
a change of language. It may be better to stick with whatever language
he currently finds most comfortable, or least uncomfortable, and focus
on practicing algorithm and program design in that language.

Patricia

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#515

In article <96h46lFdglU1@mid.individual.net>,
osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:
> Various people wrote various things about various variants of Fortran:
> 
> This thread should demonstrate, Bill, that you are not going to have any 
> experts to help you on Fortran.  At least on this newsgroup.  

Indeed.  I was just thinking I should suggest asking in a group where
there *are* experts -- comp.lang.fortran.  I hear that it gets a
lot of junk posts, which some news providers filter out but Google
Groups does not, but there is help to be had there, in my experience.

[ snip ]

> From what I have seen, I don't think a different language will help you at 
> all. 

I'm inclined to agree, alas.

-- 
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer:  I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#526

"osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:96h46lFdglU1@mid.individual.net...
> Various people wrote various things about various variants of Fortran:
>
> This thread should demonstrate, Bill, that you are not going to have any 
> experts to help you on Fortran.  At least on this newsgroup.  Many of us 
> have used Fortran ( I have both used it and taught it in college - I 
> remember the difficulty in finding a text book I really liked, even back 
> then) but it was a long time ago and memories fade.  Any minute advantages 
> that Fortran might have over C are overwhelmed by the lack of *current* 
> expertise.
>
> Either stick with C or else choose a modern language as an alternative. 
> From what I have seen, I don't think a different language will help you at 
> all.

http://www.stanford.edu/class/me200c/tutorial_77/

    I came across this page and fortran looked pretty simple. Objective C is 
definately out and I didn't like the looks of python. C++ might be the only 
alternative and it mixes well with C. Everyone seems to use C anyway.

    Althougth sometimes it's kind of hard to read, kandr2 seems to be about 
the best text on C I've read. As others have pointed out it's algorithms and 
how to do things in languages that perplexes me. I haven't looked at Ada or 
Haskell or Pascal but they're probably no better than C++ and probably OOP 
languages too. Note I don't know because I haven't checked. kandr2 gets 
frustratingly difficult for me pretty quick so maybe I need to do the 
excercises at the end of the chapters.

Bill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#537

On Jun 23, 7:25 am, "osmium" <r124c4u...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Various people wrote various things about various variants of Fortran:
>
> This thread should demonstrate, Bill, that you are not going to have any
> experts to help you on Fortran.  At least on this newsgroup.  Many of us
> have used Fortran ( I have both used it and taught it in college - I
> remember the difficulty in finding a text book I really liked, even back
> then) but it was a long time ago and memories fade.  Any minute advantages
> that Fortran might have over C are overwhelmed by the lack of *current*
> expertise.

I suggest that you (Bill) go to  "comp.lang.fortran"  if you want to
find expert fortran advice.   You'll find plenty over there.   By the
way...  there is no "Begin" in fortran and fortran doesn't have line
numbers and doesn't require you to use labels either.

However,  I can see that you're  just starting to dabble in fortran.
You can find a HUGE number of online fortran tutorials to get you
started.   And they cover modern fortran.  There are good books too,
but... you generally have to order them online as most bookstores
don't carry a lot.  There are free fortran 95 compilers out there
(note: the latest standard is fortran 2008, though, there are not yet
any compilers for it.).  Thus, there's not much need to use a decades
old version unless you just want to.

> Either stick with C or else choose a modern language as an alternative.

I think you'll find that today's fortran is quite modern and
"extremely" easy to learn.  IMHO, I don't think it gets any easier.

All you need for your first test program is 2 lines:
(using free-source form rather than the very old/original fixed source
form)

  print *, "hello world"
  end

Here's a small sample program that shows some simple text and numeric
array manipulations:

 character(64) :: a = 'hello world'
 integer           :: i(10) = (/  (k, k=1,10)  /)
 write(*,*)  trim(a)
 write(*,*)  'Say ' // a(1:5) // ' to the ' // a(7:11)
 write(*,*)  i
 write(*,*)  i(10:1:-1)
 write(*,*)  i(2:10:2)
 write(*,*)  i(2:10:2) / 2
 end
------ Results of execution --------
 hello world
 Say hello to the world
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
 2 4 6 8 10
 1 2 3 4 5

However,  I wouldn't recommend a change from your "language of choice"
without a compelling reason (modern or not).  It all depends on what
you're trying to write and why you wish to change.

Dan  :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549

osmium wrote:
> Various people wrote various things about various variants of Fortran:
>
> This thread should demonstrate, Bill, that you are not going to have
> any experts to help you on Fortran.  At least on this newsgroup. Many of 
> us have used Fortran ( I have both used it and taught it in
> college - I remember the difficulty in finding a text book I really
> liked, even back then) but it was a long time ago and memories fade. Any 
> minute advantages that Fortran might have over C are overwhelmed
> by the lack of *current* expertise.
>
> Either stick with C or else choose a modern language as an
> alternative. From what I have seen, I don't think a different
> language will help you at all.

    I don't think I'm going to dump C. But what I have noticed is a quick 
understanding of the fortran syntax. Algorithms is what I don't know. In any 
language I don't know how to go about doing what I want to do.

Bill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550

On 6/28/2011 8:21 AM, Bill Cunningham wrote:
> osmium wrote:
>> Various people wrote various things about various variants of Fortran:
>>
>> This thread should demonstrate, Bill, that you are not going to have
>> any experts to help you on Fortran.  At least on this newsgroup. Many of
>> us have used Fortran ( I have both used it and taught it in
>> college - I remember the difficulty in finding a text book I really
>> liked, even back then) but it was a long time ago and memories fade. Any
>> minute advantages that Fortran might have over C are overwhelmed
>> by the lack of *current* expertise.
>>
>> Either stick with C or else choose a modern language as an
>> alternative. From what I have seen, I don't think a different
>> language will help you at all.
>
>      I don't think I'm going to dump C. But what I have noticed is a quick
> understanding of the fortran syntax. Algorithms is what I don't know. In any
> language I don't know how to go about doing what I want to do.

Most algorithms you will ever need have already been worked out. If you
search for the name of a problem you will find examples of how to solve
it in many languages. I've studied algorithm design, and can do it, but
use that skill far less often than just looking up the algorithm I need.

The problem you need solve is not designing algorithms, but designing
programs to use the algorithms.

Patricia

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#551

Patricia Shanahan wrote:

> Most algorithms you will ever need have already been worked out. If
> you search for the name of a problem you will find examples of how to
> solve it in many languages. I've studied algorithm design, and can do
> it, but use that skill far less often than just looking up the
> algorithm I need.
> The problem you need solve is not designing algorithms, but designing
> programs to use the algorithms.

    Yes yes I gree. That's very hard for me to do in C. One thing I notice 
on clc is that good C programmers are corrected by other seasoned C 
programmers quite a bit.  C seems to be something that you learn and just 
keep on learning. But what little bit I read about fortran like .le. .lt. 
and do 10 i=0...
10 continue all makes sense. And i haven't really gotten into it. It's like 
BASIC to me.

Bill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.programming

csiph-web