Re: g77 future / proposed extension

[Jamie Lokier <jamie dot lokier at cern dot ch>]

Grant Petty wrote:
> Unfortunatly, even if C++ is perfectly suited to this problem without any
> need to extend that language, I'm quite certain that most scientists
> working on physical problems around the world are not going to begin
> migrating to C++ any time soon, no matter how great the incentive (there
> are certain important disincentives as well).  Therefore I still perceive
> an urgent need to address this problem transparently (from the scientific
> programmer's perspective) in Fortran.

I would hardly call it urgent.  If they're willing to use some ancient
language full of arcane quirks, I'm sure they can handle writing
equations out normally like they have successfully for decades.

What makes you think there are scientists who are unwilling to give up
their cherished Fortran 77 (77 for goodness sake, not 90 or 95), but
will quite happily embrace a new-fangled typed number system?

> You may be correct, but I wonder if you would be willing to state, in one
> or two sentences, why you believe this, since I am not sure I understand.
> Is it because of an official policy of keeping g77 consistent with
> 'standard' Fortran?  If so, then I need to identify people who are
> familiar with the inner workings of g77 but are not constrained by that
> policy.

Of course.  What would be the point of calling it "g77" if it's not
Fortran 77?  As opposed, for example, to g90 or g95.

have a nice day,
-- Jamie