[Info-vax] Fortran

[Simon Clubley]

On 2018-12-05, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/5/18 3:26 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> 
>> 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?
>

As discussed in other followups, what happens, for example, when
you get the count wrong ?

>> 
>> 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.  :-)
>

And _that_ is _exactly_ the point. In any modern language, the
common block would be defined _once_ as a data type and then
multiple instances of that data type used as required.

Fortunately, there are language enhancements which also help tackle
this problem in modern Fortran.

Simon.

-- 
Simon Clubley, clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world