Pascal in production environments (was Re: lisadraw)
chrism3667 at yahoo.com
Mon Nov 6 18:17:18 CST 2006
--- woodelf <bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca> wrote:
> Chris M wrote:
> > no, but I think there is an OO form of FORTRAN
> > as F. You gotta love FORTRAN
> Well after they dropped Sense Switches FORTRAN* has
> never been the
> same. In many ways FORTRAN is more machine dependant
> than you think
> since FORTRAN compliers range from the the PDP-8 to
> the PDP-10 and that
> is about as different in hardware range as they
> *PS Real Fortran has version numbers not years like
> 77 or 90.
You mean like Wat IV or V or, IIRC, FORTRAN IV and
such. Those are the years the specs were written. You
can call a compiler whatever you want, but it helps to
know with which spec it's compliant.
GCC at last check only supported F77 stuph. Funny..
I recently obtained, with docs, IBM Pro FORTRAN 1.0
by Ryan-McFarland (not M$), truely F77 compliant
(unlike M$'s version). But the manual says this is to
the best of IBM's ability to ascertain. But I guess
caveats like that apply w/o anything being said.
$200,000 mortgage for $660/mo - 30/15 yr fixed, reduce debt, home equity -
Click now for info http://yahoo.ratemarketplace.com
More information about the cctech