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