Prev: compiler bug?
Next: Fortran sleep function ???
From: user1 on 16 Dec 2008 21:37
e p chandler wrote:
> On Dec 16, 6:35 pm, user1 <u...(a)example.net> wrote:
>> GaryScott wrote:
>>> On Dec 16, 7:33 am, m...(a)skyway.usask.ca wrote:
>>>> In a previous article, user1 <u...(a)example.net> wrote:>Kevin G. Rhoads wrote:
>>>>>>> for use with WATFOR77. Since we are not in a position to test
>>>>>>> the described implementation,
>>>>>> A version of WATFOR77 for MS-DOS used to be available (I think it still is)
>>>>>> for download. I think I got a copy by way of OpenWatcom, but it was a while
>>>>>> back and I am not sure:
>>>>> I couldn't find it at ftp.openwatcom.org
>>>>> Skip Knoble has a link to WATFORF77 on his Fortran resources page. It is a
>>>>> nicely done page, but it seems that the link has now become obsolete.
>>>> Just download the Fortran - the version (DOS16,DOS32,WIN31,
>>>> WIN32 .. even OS2 ) is asked for when you start a work project (in the IDE)
>>>> (www.openwatcom.org)
>>>> Chris
>>> Do we want to perpetuate the use of this obsolete dialect? What are
>>> the plans to advance OW to F2k3?
>> A good portion of this and other recent threads have dealt with how to do
>> various things using MS Fortran v3.31, which is a truly obsolete product. It
>> boggles my mind that anyone would still be using it.
>
> 1. It's small, it's fast, it's not bloatware and it's not rife with
> bugs.
> 2. Old programs are FUN to play with.
> 3. Some people think in Fortran IV or Fortran-77.
> 4. Specialty applications like instrumentation have an amazingly long
> lifetime. Until last year I ran applications whose core was Win 3.1 to
> interface with and program equipment. Proprietary programs and
> hardware are slow to change. A serial interface box that runs at 19.2
> for that application is $600!
> 20+ years ago, I read in instrument data from punched paper tape!
> AFAIK the equipment is still running.
>
>
>

#4 makes sense. I still occasionally use ms-dos and QuickBasic 4.5 on some older
instruments, mostly recording voltage versus time data from an interface and
writing it to a disk file.

#1 to #3, well I guess people need to have hobbies ...



From: e p chandler on 17 Dec 2008 00:13
On Dec 16, 9:37 pm, user1 <u...(a)example.net> wrote:
> e p chandler wrote:
> > On Dec 16, 6:35 pm, user1 <u...(a)example.net> wrote:
> >> GaryScott wrote:
> >>> On Dec 16, 7:33 am, m...(a)skyway.usask.ca wrote:
> >>>> In a previous article, user1 <u...(a)example.net> wrote:>Kevin G. Rhoads wrote:
> >>>>>>> for use with WATFOR77. Since we are not in a position to test
> >>>>>>> the described implementation,
> >>>>>> A version of WATFOR77 for MS-DOS used to be available (I think it still is)
> >>>>>> for download.  I think I got a copy by way of OpenWatcom, but it was a while
> >>>>>> back and I am not sure:
> >>>>> I couldn't find it at ftp.openwatcom.org
> >>>>> Skip Knoble has a link to WATFORF77 on his Fortran resources page. It is a
> >>>>> nicely done page, but it seems that the link has now become obsolete.
> >>>>    Just download the Fortran - the version (DOS16,DOS32,WIN31,  
> >>>> WIN32 .. even OS2 ) is asked for when you start a work project (in the IDE)
> >>>>  (www.openwatcom.org)
> >>>> Chris
> >>> Do we want to perpetuate the use of this obsolete dialect?  What are
> >>> the plans to advance OW to F2k3?
> >> A good portion of this and other recent threads have dealt with how to do
> >> various things using MS Fortran v3.31, which is a truly obsolete product. It
> >> boggles my mind that anyone would still be using it.
>
> > 1. It's small, it's fast, it's not bloatware and it's not rife with
> > bugs.
> > 2. Old programs are FUN to play with.
> > 3. Some people think in Fortran IV or Fortran-77.
> > 4. Specialty applications like instrumentation have an amazingly long
> > lifetime. Until last year I ran applications whose core was Win 3.1 to
> > interface with and program equipment. Proprietary programs and
> > hardware are slow to change. A serial interface box that runs at 19.2
> > for that application is $600!
> > 20+ years ago, I read in instrument data from punched paper tape!
> > AFAIK the equipment is still running.
>
> #4 makes sense. I still occasionally use ms-dos and QuickBasic 4.5 on some older
> instruments, mostly recording voltage versus time data from an interface and
> writing it to a disk file.

Microsoft Fortran 3.31 runs on Vista. 4.x and 5.x do not.

> #1 to #3, well I guess people need to have hobbies ...

Computers keep me from speding money on expensive model trains.

-- e





From: Kevin G. Rhoads on 18 Dec 2008 09:57
>> 20+ years ago, I read in instrument data from punched paper tape!
>> AFAIK the equipment is still running.
>
>Yeah, i work in aerospace. I'm well aware of old equipment that won't
>or can't be allowed to die (with 30-50 year lifespans).

I was recently at NASA/Wallops Flight Facility for payload integration.
The Ground Station Equipment (GSEs) use strip chart recorders. THey'd
just gotten six (6) new strip chart recorders -- three times as big,
with a large flat panel display showing the simulated chart. IIRC
the new ones cost $42k EACH.

The new ones run WinXP -- I have some photos of one of the techs putting
Solitaire through its paces on the touch-screen.

Most of the Telemetry Data Processor (TDP) computers are running DOS, with
a display program which was written (I am told) in Turbo Pascal. A few of
the newer "lunch box" style portable computers for field work are running
Win98 with the option to drop into DOS for some of the older, crankier
programs.

The engineers' field laptops are modern, running WinXP usually. But Wallops
IT people do NOT allow engineers to have administrator privileges. Getting
software installed is a b*tch. Unless, of course, it is older stuff --
I can copy MS Fortran 5.1 onto anything and start compiling and linking
programs.

Yes, there are advantages to newer -- BUT there are also advantages to
OLDER. Such as smaller footprint, faster running, and not needing to
"Mommy may I?" with ignorant IT types.

I find the F77 dialect quite adequate for my programming needs. When
I bump into something that is beyond it, a judicious amount of either C
or assembler gets the job done. I would NOT recommend this to newbies,
but it suits for what I do. As for OpenWatcom -- while the F77 side is
not really being pushed forward fast or much, it is still getting extended.
And there is real work on the C/C++ side, which includes the code generator,
so F77 benefits from improvements to the code generator and new porting
efforts, such as the porting to Linux (alpha, at best). Since F77
is getting a free ride there, I see no reason to discourage it. Certainly,
I would not point a person learning Fortran there, unless they needed to
deal an F77 code base, and even then, not for the learning.

Anyway, that MHOO -- YMMV.
From: Kevin G. Rhoads on 18 Dec 2008 09:58
>Microsoft Fortran 3.31 runs on Vista. 4.x and 5.x do not.

That's very interesting. Another reason to avoid Vista like the plague it is.
From: Kevin G. Rhoads on 18 Dec 2008 09:59
>i think it does have rexx with it though ?? that i like

No REXX comes with MS Fortran 3.31.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: compiler bug?
Next: Fortran sleep function ???