Fortran Versions (was JB Passes)
Courtney, Lee
Lee.Courtney at windriver.com
Tue Mar 27 18:00:20 CDT 2007
> old programs have to be re-written since they don't support
> things like sence switches for example.
I suspect because the concept of a sense switch on a contemporary
machine is moot - there are no physical switches to toggle to signal a
change in the execution of a program.
How did newer versions of the language handle deprecation of the sense
switch - error, warning, ignore?
Lee Courtney
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org
> [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of woodelf
> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:00 PM
> To: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> Subject: Re: Fortran Versions (was JB Passes)
>
> Chuck Guzis wrote:
>
>
> > I rather liked Basic FORTRAN IV (that's what it was called). A
> > minimal functional subset; no logical IFs, ASSIGNed GOTOs, object-
> > time FORMAT or named COMMON. Just a handful of
> statements that you
> > could pretty much compile and run anywhere.
>
> I rather liked full blown FORTRAN IV. I have been looking at
> the PDP8 Fortran IV version and all things considered that
> was a powerful machine for its price range in the 1970's.
> All this talk of Fortran 77, 90 make fortran a more modern
> langage but it seems to me they lost something in that the
> old programs have to be re-written since they don't support
> things like sence switches for example.
>
> > Cheers,
> > Chuck
>
>
>
More information about the cctalk
mailing list