[Info-vax] Fortran

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 12/3/18 3:24 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 12/3/2018 9:13 AM, John Reagan wrote:
>> On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 12:44:45 AM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig
>> (undress to reply) wrote:
>>> I remember a statement from VSI that one of their goals was to
>>> have up-to-date compilers.
>>
>> To be specific, the roadmap has mentions improved standards
>> compliance for C, C++, and Fortran.  I just want to shut down any
>> discussion of object-oriented COBOL from newer COBOL standards.
> 
> Interest for that seems to be low. If somebody want OO they
> pick another language.

You got that backwards, kinda.  OO was added to COBOL even though the
actual user base said they neither needed or wanted it.  The standards
body, in its infinite wisdom, added it anyway.  And then they all got
POed when the COBOL user community refused to waste time and effort
using it.   :-)

> 
>>                                                                Or
>> Extended Pascal (although we're about 2/3rds compliant on that with
>> DEC extensions to cover much of the rest).
> 
> This I don't get. Are there any newer Pascal standards?
> 
>> I've been in touch with the flang/f18 folks.  I've been code
>> reviewing some of their recent changes to get DWARF generation for
>> Fortran specific features like COMMON blocks, etc.
>>
>> What I imagine is that once we are fully native with a newer
>> clang/LLVM, we'll look at providing flang/f18 on OpenVMS x86 along
>> side of the traditional Fortran compiler so you can choose.  Probably
>> not at the very first release, but I'd hope very soon afterwards.
> 
> The benefits of using an industry standard CPU and an industry standard
> compiler backend.

Standards are only of value when they reflect the needs of the user
community.  When their main purpose is to fluff up the egos of the
standards body members, what's the point?

bill