Fortran 77 Manual for beginners
in [Fortran]
|
Prev: proble in common
Next: GNU f90 read() run time error
From: steve on 14 May 2010 21:05 On May 14, 4:21 pm, A Watcher <stocks...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > Ron Shepard wrote: > > In article <hsjubj$5h...(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > > A Watcher <stocks...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > >> glen herrmannsfeldt wrote: > >> ? > >>> Now, if you have a class that goes through features in an > >>> appropriate order, such that you learn the easier to use ones > >>> first, then maybe it isn't a problem. But if you pick up a > >>> Fortran 2003 reference manual and start reading, you will get > >>> confused faster than from a Fortran 77 reference manual. > > >> That's what I was getting at. If you are learning it on your own F90/95 > >> can be bewildering. I certainly don't suggest sticking to F77, though. > >> Just use it to get started. > > > There are many tutorials and textbooks available for f95 that make > > learning the language much easier. There are some online that are > > free and pretty good, at least good enough to make learning the > > language better than "bewildering". I'm not aware of any that > > address the new f2003 features, but I'd expect those to be available > > soon as compilers begin to support those new features. > > > $.02 -Ron Shepard > > A well written book aimed at beginners, or at least people who are new > to fortran, would be good. Ideally it should teach the core ideas and > not try to cover everything at once. The learning curve can be steep > if you try to learn it all at once. Metcalf and Reid's "Fortran 90/95 Explained" probably meets your criteria. This is the older version of the book by Metcalf, Reid and Cohen. A person familiar with programming in some other language could read the book in a few hours. A person new to program may need a day or 2. Either person would be able to write a Fortran 90/95 program within a hour. -- steve
From: Jim Xia on 15 May 2010 00:32 > > Ah, the attribute declaration statements. These are the most hated > > features in Fortran for me. I'm still seeing code like this in > > claimed F95 programs > > > INTEGER x > > REAL y > > DOUBLE PRECISION z > > COMPLEX w > > ... many lines of declarations > > PARAMETER (x = 10, y = 1.0) > > Maybe it is claimed to be a F95 program because, well, it is > standard conforming code. > I didn't say it was illegal. What I said was the code was so F77- style that even though it was claimed F95, the coder must be in F77 mind-set. After all, every programmer knows the famous saying "you can write FORTRAN in any language" although 99% of them have never seen a real F95 or F2003 code. It's pretty disappointing to see people still advocate the old "FORTRAN" practices that gave FORTRAN such a bad name. Jim
From: steve on 15 May 2010 00:45 On May 14, 9:32 pm, Jim Xia <jim...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Ah, the attribute declaration statements. These are the most hated > > > features in Fortran for me. I'm still seeing code like this in > > > claimed F95 programs > > > > INTEGER x > > > REAL y > > > DOUBLE PRECISION z > > > COMPLEX w > > > ... many lines of declarations > > > PARAMETER (x = 10, y = 1.0) > > > Maybe it is claimed to be a F95 program because, well, it is > > standard conforming code. > > I didn't say it was illegal. What I said was the code was so F77- > style that even though it was claimed F95, the coder must be in F77 > mind-set. After all, every programmer knows the famous saying "you > can write FORTRAN in any language" although 99% of them have never > seen a real F95 or F2003 code. It's pretty disappointing to see > people still advocate the old "FORTRAN" practices that gave FORTRAN > such a bad name. > I did not say that you said it was illegal. I simply noted that you wrote "I'm still seeing code like this in claimed F95 programs." I noted that the code you posted is valid F95 so someone that claimed their code to be a "f95 program" is correct. Whether you dislike the style is a different matter. -- steve
From: Terence on 15 May 2010 06:35
On May 15, 5:45 am, nos...(a)see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote: (snipped) > You'll have to remember to type everything in upper case and to keep > your variable names to no more than 7 characters. You'll not be able to > take advantage of implicit none. .... (snipped) I thought about that partial paragraph, and went back to my trusty MS V3.31 F77 compiler of 1985. It happily took lower case text anywhere and allowed 6 character variable names in the main program and 5 character variable names in any subroutine. I suupose other versions allowed other variations. No quibble on the rest. |