Fortran Vs C, C++, C#
in [Fortran]
|
Prev: practice online trading. platinum online trading. online trading worldwide. online trading which is best
Next: variant data type
From: Thomas Koenig on 22 Jul 2010 15:51 On 2010-07-12, jfh <john.harper(a)vuw.ac.nz> wrote: > On Jul 13, 12:35�am, mecej4 <mecej4.nyets...(a)operamail.com> wrote: > >> FORTRAN IV is more suggestive of a general or a pope than a numeral. > > A general?? Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard disc?
From: Terence on 24 Jul 2010 07:15 On Jul 16, 5:41 am, Lynn McGuire <l...(a)winsim.com> wrote: .... > Nice idea. Did I mention the 3,000 subroutines and functions ? > 650,000 lines of code ? > > Thanks, > Lynn I enjoyed going over this thread. I noticed I couldn't follow the implications of suggestions made for the newer compiler environments, but everything between "Fortran III" and "F90" seemed to make sense. I particulatly envy Lynn McGuire having a nice problem; I've been bored resently, looking for something to program, and apart from advising someone with few local resources, who mistook me for Richard, on how to go from Fortran IV to something with a future, like F77 source (to get the new source compilable, not due to my preferences), I'd like to find a new challenge. Someone else was working on Hamming matrix generation, and still another on DNA segment searching and matching, but I couldn't use the results and so lost interest. I've just been given a Mac Professional; I'd like to know what can be suggested for sourcing a Forran compiler for native mode; my trusty F77 compiler works fine in the MDSOS emulaion on the MAC, and the resulting programs run execept for handling a tiny few of the function and pad key keyboard combinations, but the programs are not new work. Sigh. And I've still got about 25 years more left to fill...
From: Phillip Helbig---undress to reply on 24 Jul 2010 07:30 In article <f2e04c74-9e7a-44e0-9924-84a2417f9991(a)s24g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Terence <tbwright(a)cantv.net> writes: > I noticed I couldn't follow the implications of suggestions made for > the newer compiler environments, but everything between "Fortran III" > and "F90" seemed to make sense. F95 is what you want. F95 is just a slight revision of F90, but all the additional stuff is really useful. Also, I suspect that any compiler which supports F90 supports F95.
From: Gordon Sande on 24 Jul 2010 10:25 On 2010-07-24 08:15:56 -0300, Terence <tbwright(a)cantv.net> said: > I've just been given a Mac Professional; I'd like to know what can be > suggested for sourcing a Forran compiler for native mode; my trusty > F77 compiler works fine in the MDSOS emulaion on the MAC, and the > resulting programs run execept for handling a tiny few of the function > and pad key keyboard combinations, but the programs are not new work. > Sigh. You can go commercial with NAG, Absoft and Intel the major vendors. Or there ae the GNU "twins" of G95 and Gfortran. They all support F95 with more and more F2003. Not to sure about "Forran". For good debugging there is only one real choice - NAG. It will also cure you of any inclination to try extensions so you code will almost surely be portable. Since your Mac Pro was a gift you can show that you appreciate it by going first class and paying for a NAG license. Install the GNU ones to provide constructive demonstration of portability by compileing with them once in a while.
From: nmm1 on 24 Jul 2010 11:52
In article <2010072411250216807-GordonSande(a)gmailcom>, Gordon Sande <Gordon.Sande(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On 2010-07-24 08:15:56 -0300, Terence <tbwright(a)cantv.net> said: > >> I've just been given a Mac Professional; I'd like to know what can be >> suggested for sourcing a Forran compiler for native mode; my trusty >> F77 compiler works fine in the MDSOS emulaion on the MAC, and the >> resulting programs run execept for handling a tiny few of the function >> and pad key keyboard combinations, but the programs are not new work. >> Sigh. > >You can go commercial with NAG, Absoft and Intel the major vendors. Or >there ae the GNU "twins" of G95 and Gfortran. They all support F95 with >more and more F2003. Not to sure about "Forran". > >For good debugging there is only one real choice - NAG. It will also >cure you of any inclination to try extensions so you code will almost >surely be portable. It's also the only one that I know of that does array bound checking across procedure calls - as far as I know, it's near bullet-proof in that respect if you compile everything with -C=all and don't call C or unchecked libraries. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |