Fortran is dead?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| bigg Sep 19, 2009 7:55 AM EDT |
I find it odd to proclaim, "So many other languages have come and gone over the past five decades - including MANTIS, FORTRAN, MUMPS, Forte, and Smalltalk - but COBOL refuses to die." Fortran is not dead. FORTRAN is dead, but Fortran lives on, and is backwards compatible with FORTRAN. Modern Fortran is popular, and although computer scientists don't teach it because it is insufficiently sexy ($deity forbid that they should teach an introductory programming class that doesn't cover objects by the second lecture), it works, it's easy to learn, easy to read, and does what many of us need it to do - including object oriented programming. |
| TxtEdMacs Sep 19, 2009 10:12 AM EDT |
The only computer science course I took* ** was Fortran. Even then I, not knowing how really to program I had my qualms, because it seemed to me with the code line numbering and the propensity to use GO / JUMP TO*** I had visions of spaghetti code before I had rational knowledge of what that meant. What is Fortran like today? YBT [Mostly serious here] * More accurately, sat in. ** twice *** No longer remember the syntax used in Fortran at that time. |
| bigg Sep 19, 2009 11:11 AM EDT |
It sounds like you took a course in FORTRAN (as in FORTRAN 77). I do not use GO TO or line numbers for any reason, and hate reading old code that does. The silly indentation rules are also gone. The problem with FORTRAN, I think, is that it was clumsy because they couldn't look at anyone else's mistakes, because they were the first. IMO there is nothing better for number crunching today.* Modern Fortran has a lot of helpful intrinsic functions, allocatable arrays, derived data types, array-valued functions, interoperability with C, function overloading, pointers, and various other features. That doesn't mean much if you don't do number crunching, but I do. I find it to be no more difficult than Matlab. You'd never write a word processor or OS in Fortran, and that's a good thing. I like a language that is focused. *I realize that I am in the minority. Most new college graduates think it's a legacy language. Their professors told them so. Thing is, I'm not that old but I didn't trust my professors enough to stay away from Fortran. |
| gus3 Sep 19, 2009 11:34 AM EDT |
It's been announced authoritatively time and time again, and it keeps proving wrong. "Is dead" is dead. (Now I just hope the universe doesn't collapse into an unresolvable paradox...) |
| TxtEdMacs Sep 19, 2009 1:08 PM EDT |
gus, Don't worry about a universe or a multiverse collapse, just the time scale will protect you. Moreover, I am growing increasing certain that both life and particularly intelligence were not part of the overall plan. YBT |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 19, 2009 3:44 PM EDT |
I personally found FORTRAN to be far easier to learn than C. C has a lot more short-hand in it, which makes for less typing and tighter code, but it's much harder to read. Programming logic remains the same. Problems must be broken into discrete steps, described using whatever it is the language uses. GOTO can be abused in any language. |
| gus3 Sep 19, 2009 3:58 PM EDT |
Quoting:Problems must be broken into discrete steps, described using whatever it is the language uses.FORTRAN describes the "what." C describes the "how." And LISP describes the quantum interactions within the cerebrum. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 19, 2009 3:59 PM EDT |
> And LISP describes the quantum interactions within the cerebrum. NASA spacecraft were so much more reliable when they were programmed with LISP. |
| montezuma Sep 19, 2009 4:38 PM EDT |
That is just plain bizarre. In the scientific area Fortran is still very widespread and only in the last 10 years has C made any inroads at all. I wonder at times about the narrowness of the writers at El Reg. |
| mortenalver Sep 21, 2009 4:44 AM EDT |
I can confirm that Fortran is not dead - I work with it regularly, commercially. |
| TxtEdMacs Sep 21, 2009 10:56 AM EDT |
The misinformation spread by such purportedly informed sources grieves me personally. Therefore, I must write an essay proving from personal experience WHY Fortran is dead. First I can report with certainty that it is unused, because personally I refuse to use it. So there, you know at minimum it's on its death bed. Second, I with a select batch of friends (Haters of Fortran) buried years ago in a field, which was reported widely in that rural county near the frozen wastes adjacent to the Canadian boarder. See? It's dead. Now here's the clincher, it's buried right next to: All the BSDs with lesser known entities that were popular in their day, but their names are too hard to read with the acid rain etching off the flowery words from the stone surface. The power plant effluents have blurred the text to an unreadable state. I can, however, report that there are reserved spots for Apple OSs that is becoming increasingly less used and sick. Names after running mammals trying to elude death in harsh environs. A give away saying even they know the end is near. Also there is a reserved spot for a Linux distribution that is nearing its end and is only known by the volume of wails given off by its supporters. Hmm ... not too familiar with this one slash ... ? or is it slack ... ? something ware? Damn that acid rain. I think I provided enough evidence, so I want you all to shut up, since my word is definitive. If you doubt it, just ask me. i have statistics to show my word is law. Your Buddy Txt. |
| bigg Sep 21, 2009 11:35 AM EDT |
Hey. Hey. Don't joke about Slackware. I'm productively writing Fortran programs and Tcl scripts on my Slackware machine. Sometimes I even use Emacs and work without X. It would be difficult to maintain my seven figure income otherwise. In my defense to the new college grads, sometimes I use Python. I also don't have a beard, and I seldom use Unix. |
| gus3 Sep 21, 2009 1:14 PM EDT |
Emacs? Real programmers use sed. |
| bigg Sep 21, 2009 1:26 PM EDT |
> Real programmers use sed. I normally use Kate when I have to write a program. That probably makes me a hobbyist. |
| jezuch Sep 21, 2009 2:55 PM EDT |
Quoting:Real programmers use sed. Aaaaaalmost right. http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/ed.msg.html |
| number6x Sep 21, 2009 6:04 PM EDT |
My other terminal is running ISPF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISPF Literally right now it is! I am browsing a COBOL program in ISPF 3.4 on my other terminal. At least once a week I have to check or work with COBOL code, often daily. COBOL is about as 'dead' as mosquitos on Minnesota. MOVE FM105-CFA-CD TO FM21A-CFA-CD. MOVE FM1A5-CFA-CD TO FM21A-CFA-CD. MOVE CIAPP2-CFA-CD TO FM21A-CFA-CD. FORTRAN is dead here. I was a contractor here many years ago hired to re-write the FORTRAN code in C. Back a few times over the last decade on other contracts, and now a full time employee. Of course the COBOL code mostly just runs and never gets noticed. The Java guys are always chasing bugs. Its probably more the level of maturity of the code. I'm sure in the 70's and 80's there were lots of bugs in the COBOL. They just got fixed a long time ago thats all. I'm usually checking COBOL to write specs for new things: Boss:"Hey, how do we handle posting transactions for XYZ type accounts when tax deferred payments are in place?" Me:"I'm not sure there are no design docs from the 1980's! I'll check COBOL program IUZZ123 and find out how they do it." |
| gus3 Sep 21, 2009 11:03 PM EDT |
@#6x: That's how COBOL was explained to me years ago: "Name your storage and routines well, and it will read like normal English. Name them poorly, and it will read like a lawyer wrote it." [Or an IBM tech writer.--ed.] |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 22, 2009 5:36 AM EDT |
Quoting:Real programmers use sed. Obligatory XKCD link: http://xkcd.com/378/ |
| jdixon Sep 22, 2009 6:39 AM EDT |
> Obligatory XKCD link... And yesterday's geek hero, which is a take off of same: http://www.geekherocomic.com/2009/09/21/c-x-m-c-m-butterfly/ |
| TxtEdMacs Sep 22, 2009 12:08 PM EDT |
I HATE YOU ALL! I cannot tell you how sorely disappointed i was to have my excitement quenched by this is a joke line at the very end. I was literally salivating thinking, " ... only twenty four bytes", I was on the threshold of being able to cast away millions of useless, bloated bits ... or at least a few hundred thousands that I used in tighter spots. Only to be disdained and laughed at again. You are so cruel. But as always, Your Buddy Txt. P.S. But it doesn't change a thing: Fortran is dead along with all the BSDs, BeOS, Amiga, etc. etc. And the next time I visit, I promise I will commit a slashing attack on slack and finish off too for good. So go hide your wares, I will be back. |
| softwarejanitor Sep 22, 2009 2:25 PM EDT |
I never had to program in FORTRAN, but the engineering students did where I went to college... And the poor pitiful souls used to come around with printouts of horrendous spaghetti code asking for help debugging... Of course that was F77... nasty stuff. COBOL is pretty wretched stuff too. I've never had to write any of that either, but I've had to read COBOL code enough to write C/C++ or Perl code to read COBOL data files. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!