Help us defend against VMS!

[Michael S. Fischbein]

In article <4125 at megaron.arizona.edu> lm at megaron.arizona.edu.UUCP (Larry McVoy) writes:
>In article <717 at cresswell.quintus.UUCP> ok at quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:
>>In article <4080 at megaron.arizona.edu>, lm at arizona.edu (Larry McVoy) writes:
>>>   VMS fortran is the de facto industry standard.

Uhhh. No.  ANSI FORTRAN 77 is the de facto and de jure industry standard.

>Let me put it this way: consider the type of people that use fortran.

Gee.  We have a LOT of engineers, scientists, and general number crunchers
using FORTRAN on machines ranging from PC's to Cray-2's.  Many know no
other computer language.  We run a variety of operating systems too,
including Unix and VMS.

>Look at what fortran those people use.

They use f77 if it is avaible on the machine in use.  Otherwise, the
program that does it's test cases so correctly on the VMS VAX doesn't
compile, let alone run, on the Unix (sort of) Cray.  Or on the VSOS Cyber.

>Just because unix has f77
>does not make it a fortran oriented machine 

Nope.  It is a general purpose operating system.

>(f77 is not
>the selling point of unix).

No.  Compatibility is.  The fact that the same commands work on the
workstation, the local mini, the minisuper, and the super is a tremendous
convenience to the typical researchers who are not interested in the internal
details of the machine -- they are interested in physics.

>To beat a dead horse: would you buy
>an apollo to run fortran?  Or a sun for that matter?  Or an ibm?

Yes, we have.
 
>I think that you should ask fortran hackers what sort of fortran they
>want, not Unix/C hackers.

They want standard fortran that runs the same on EVERY machine.

		mike

-- 
Michael Fischbein                 msf at ames-nas.arpa
                                  ...!seismo!decuac!csmunix!icase!msf
These are my opinions and not necessarily official views of any
organization.