[Info-vax] VSI Community License Program - x86

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 4/10/2023 6:14 PM, bill wrote:
> On 4/10/2023 4:16 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 4/10/2023 10:19 AM, bill wrote:
>>> On 4/9/2023 8:05 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 4/9/2023 11:35 AM, bill wrote:
>>>>> Well, that's a small bummer.  My biggest interest is in COBOL but I
>>>>> guess I could play with the Fortran a bit.  But my interest in 
>>>>> Fortran runs out around Fortran-77.  :-)
>>>>
>>>> It should compile Fortran 77 just fine.
>>>
>>> I thought VMS Fortran was up at least to Fortran 99.  I was just
>>> hinting that, like COBOL, I have no interest in and see little
>>> value in the more modern accretions.
>>
>> Fortran 90/95.
>>
>> So they added a ton of features. But they did not remove
>> the old stuff.
>>
>> So your Fortran 77 code should compile fine.
>>
>> (I believe the Fortran 90 standard explicit required Fortran
>> 77 compatibility, but that the Fortran 95 standard removed some
>> of the 77 stuff, which does not matter as VSI Fortran kept
>> that stuff)
> 
> As I understand it Fortran (much like COBOL) added a  lot of junk
> that had nothing to with the intended function of the language.
> In the case of COBOL, thankfully, it was mostly ignored by true
> practitioners of the art.  Fortran did not fare as well.

I think that a large part of Fortran developers actually like
the new features in 90/95 (or at least a significant part of them) and
use them.

Fortran 77 to 90/95 is not so much a paradigm change but
more practical oriented stuff. Examples:
- free format instead of fixed format
- "switch"
- dynamic memory allocation
- module concept

Huge change in how code is written and in many ways a totally
new language, but still in the Fortran spirit.

Fortran 90/95 to 2003/2008/2018 is a bit more mixed with
some paragdigm changing features (OOP) but also some
practical stuff (definition of interface with C, lots
of stuff to facilitate parallelization).

Arne