[Info-vax] Fortran

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 12/5/2018 9:06 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> 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?

They are more difficult to read than 77 character strings.

More difficult to read means more errors.

>> 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."

There are two different models to support old code:
A) Remove unwanted features from language standard but
    either keep old compilers in parallel with the new
    compilers or have the new compilers have a switch /OLD
    that make them use old standard.
B) Keep unwanted features in language standard and
    therefore automatically supported by all compliant
    new compilers

Arne