[Info-vax] Fortran

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 12/5/18 3:26 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2018-12-04, Dave Froble <davef at tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> On 12/4/2018 9:25 AM, abrsvc wrote:
>>>
>>> The removal of Hollerith constants is ongoing in anticipation of the loss of support for those in future compilers.
>>>
> 
> That code must be multiple decades old. I know it's a pain, especially
> when certification is involved, but sometimes code needs to be
> updated in light of more modern standards and safety requirements.

Is this another "Newer .EQ. Better .AND. Older .EQ. Bad" argument?
Should it also be applied to VMS in general?  :-(

Safety?  What is unsafe about Hollerith constants?

> 
> In some ways, it's no different than needing to update VAX C
> code to work with modern C compilers. The updates are required
> for a reason and the code is better as a result.

See argument above.  Newer does not automatically mean better.
Thus the reason UNISYS still offers and supports 1968 COBOL.
The newer compiler is available, but moving to it is not forced.
What happened to "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

> 
>>
>> Apparently there are those "bemoaning" the loss ....
>>
>> I got to ask, why were they removed?  Was it necessary?
>>
> 
> They were removed because it is a concept which results in both
> hard to read and hard to maintain code and which was replaced by
> a safer option decades ago.

I find DCL hard to read and hard to maintain.  Maybe it should
be removed. Once again, forcing change on everyone because of some
people's shortcomings.

> 
> Fortran has had ideas which seemed good at the time but which have
> not stood the test of time. The other one which comes immediately
> to mind are common blocks whose definitions are repeated in more
> than one place.

The only problem I have ever seen with COMMON BLOCKS was inconsistent
definitions.  :-)

bill