Why these original FORTRAN quirks?
in [Fortran]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 24 Nov 2006 09:32 In article <4slkbgF104q2hU2(a)mid.individual.net>, blmblm(a)myrealbox.com <blmblm(a)myrealbox.com> wrote: >In article <ehstlj$8qk_005(a)s834.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >> In article <1161796701.620075.134910(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, >> wclodius(a)lanl.gov wrote: >> > >> >Gene Wirchenko wrote: >> >> nospam(a)see.signature (Richard E Maine) wrote: >> >> >> >> >Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj <urjlew(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> [snip] >> >> >> >> >> purely Fortran? But I'd consider that to be rather unrealistic in a >> >> >> production environment. Linkers, loaders, libraries etc. are a fact >> >> >> of life. >> >> > >> >> >I think we are not communicating here. The linkers, loaders, etc, are >> >> >part of the Fortran environment. That's why the Fortran standard (like >> >> >> >> They are? I used FORTRAN, back in the capitals days. The linker >> >> and loader were part of the OS. Many language systems used them. >> > >> >Of course they are part of the Fortran environment. They were also part >> >of the environment of any other language system that relied on them. A >> >(viable) (fortran) compiler must (be designed to) deal with their >> >conditions and influences (it is in effect surrounded by them) and the >> >result of using the linkers and loaders must be a code that must be be >> >usable within the system (including the OS) it is used in. >> >> CAreful. The linkers and loaders aren't separate. What is even >> worse is that the kiddies who think they know how machines work, >> are not aware of the reasons for linkers and loaders; they assume, >> rightly from their experience, that it is all one procedural step. >> This is a loss of knowledge that is happening right now. > >It might be worse than you think: I'm not even sure they all >really understand that compiling has to happen (well, assuming a >compiled rather than an interpreted language). Tools such as Eclipse >(an IDE -- Interactive Development Environment, more on request) >compile on the fly as the user types (presumably so they can more >or less flag errors as they're typed) and/or automatically when >the user clicks the "run" button. I suspect this makes it easy to >not realize that this important step is happening. It's worse than that. There is no concept of machine language. I've talked with people in newsgroup who think it is the ASCII that is executed. Using HLLs exasperated this loss of knowledge. /BAH
From: Bill Marcum on 24 Nov 2006 10:04 ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.folklore.computers.] On 23 Nov 2006 13:48:18 -0800, Terence <tbwright(a)cantv.net> wrote: > Restating original title. > How about restating the original quirks, or any others (FORTRAN quirks) you want to know about? -- BOFH excuse #182: endothermal recalibration
From: Charlie Gibbs on 24 Nov 2006 12:05 In article <ek6vq3$8qk_009(a)s989.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com (jmfbahciv) writes: > In article <4slkbgF104q2hU2(a)mid.individual.net>, > blmblm(a)myrealbox.com <blmblm(a)myrealbox.com> wrote: > >> It might be worse than you think: I'm not even sure they all >> really understand that compiling has to happen (well, assuming a >> compiled rather than an interpreted language). Tools such as Eclipse >> (an IDE -- Interactive Development Environment, more on request) >> compile on the fly as the user types (presumably so they can more >> or less flag errors as they're typed) and/or automatically when >> the user clicks the "run" button. I suspect this makes it easy to >> not realize that this important step is happening. > > It's worse than that. There is no concept of machine language. > I've talked with people in newsgroup who think it is the ASCII > that is executed. Using HLLs exasperated this loss of knowledge. I think you meant "exacerbated", Barb. But maybe that's just another of your eerily-appropriate typos; this loss of knowledge certainly is exasperating. Malaproptimism n. The belief that everything will come out all right in the wash. -- /~\ cgibbs(a)kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
From: Gary Scott on 24 Nov 2006 12:30 Charlie Gibbs wrote: > In article <ek6vq3$8qk_009(a)s989.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com (jmfbahciv) writes: > > >>In article <4slkbgF104q2hU2(a)mid.individual.net>, >>blmblm(a)myrealbox.com <blmblm(a)myrealbox.com> wrote: >> >> >>>It might be worse than you think: I'm not even sure they all >>>really understand that compiling has to happen (well, assuming a >>>compiled rather than an interpreted language). Tools such as Eclipse >>>(an IDE -- Interactive Development Environment, more on request) >>>compile on the fly as the user types (presumably so they can more >>>or less flag errors as they're typed) and/or automatically when >>>the user clicks the "run" button. I suspect this makes it easy to >>>not realize that this important step is happening. >> >>It's worse than that. There is no concept of machine language. >>I've talked with people in newsgroup who think it is the ASCII >>that is executed. Using HLLs exasperated this loss of knowledge. > > > I think you meant "exacerbated", Barb. But maybe that's just another > of your eerily-appropriate typos; this loss of knowledge certainly is > exasperating. > > Malaproptimism n. The belief that everything will come out > all right in the wash. > Much as I enjoy reading about the ancient history of my favorite operating system (VM). It has strayed someone in its relevance to Fortran. Recommend trimming comp.lang.fortran. -- Gary Scott mailto:garylscott(a)sbcglobal dot net Fortran Library: http://www.fortranlib.com Support the Original G95 Project: http://www.g95.org -OR- Support the GNU GFortran Project: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/index.html Why are there two? God only knows. If you want to do the impossible, don't hire an expert because he knows it can't be done. -- Henry Ford
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Nov 2006 10:48
In article <1428.554T2490T5455895(a)kltpzyxm.invalid>, "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs(a)kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >In article <ek6vq3$8qk_009(a)s989.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com (jmfbahciv) writes: > >> In article <4slkbgF104q2hU2(a)mid.individual.net>, >> blmblm(a)myrealbox.com <blmblm(a)myrealbox.com> wrote: >> >>> It might be worse than you think: I'm not even sure they all >>> really understand that compiling has to happen (well, assuming a >>> compiled rather than an interpreted language). Tools such as Eclipse >>> (an IDE -- Interactive Development Environment, more on request) >>> compile on the fly as the user types (presumably so they can more >>> or less flag errors as they're typed) and/or automatically when >>> the user clicks the "run" button. I suspect this makes it easy to >>> not realize that this important step is happening. >> >> It's worse than that. There is no concept of machine language. >> I've talked with people in newsgroup who think it is the ASCII >> that is executed. Using HLLs exasperated this loss of knowledge. > >I think you meant "exacerbated", Barb. Yes! Thank you. I knew it was wrong but couldn't my brain to work. > But maybe that's just another >of your eerily-appropriate typos; this loss of knowledge certainly is >exasperating. > >Malaproptimism n. The belief that everything will come out >all right in the wash. Is that before or after the dye is cast? /BAH |