Talk:Fortran: Difference between revisions
imported>Paul Wormer (New page: {{subpages}}) |
imported>Drew R. Smith |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
== FORTRAN (I) == | |||
While it's unfortunately in storage, one of my proud possessions is a FORTRAN manual for the IBM 709. It isn't called FORTRAN I because no one had yet contemplated a II. No, I never wrote for a 709; the closest I got was converting IBM 7094 code to run on the UNIVAC 1108. | |||
There are some interesting, obsolete features. The FREQUENCY statement preceded optimizing compilers, and indeed PRAGMA or other human-judgment features in other languages. FREQUENCY follows an IF statement, and expresses the programmer's expectation of the frequency with which each branch will be taken. The compiler would use this information to order the comparisons in machine code. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 17:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:When I started programming (in 1967) Fortran was considered a vulgar American language (at least at many Dutch Universities), so I was forced to use Algol 60. I started programming Fortran in earnest at Duke University (on the IBM 360-75 of the Triangle Research Center) in 1969. This was in Fortran 66. "Frequency" had gone from the language, PRAGMA was still present in the CDC dialect, but not in IBM's. When I later returned to Holland, mathematicians had lost the language battle to the physicists and engineers and Fortran was available everywhere in the country. --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 05:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Some issues I couldn't fix myself. == | |||
"This the more likely, as a very noticeable feature of all Fortran versions..." | |||
This doesn't make much sense grammatically, but I'm not quite sure what the author inteded to say.[[User:Drew R. Smith|Drew R. Smith]] 09:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:"This the more likely, because a very noticeable feature of all Fortran versions..." Is that better? --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 11:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
::I guess the missing "is" was making the phrase odd, so I [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Fortran&curid=100123434&diff=100544758&oldid=100544706 fixed] that. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 12:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::Thanks Daniel. It's a run-on sentence now, but that's definitely better than what we had before. Again, I would have fixed it myself had I understood the authors intent.[[User:Drew R. Smith|Drew R. Smith]] 13:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 07:25, 4 August 2009
FORTRAN (I)
While it's unfortunately in storage, one of my proud possessions is a FORTRAN manual for the IBM 709. It isn't called FORTRAN I because no one had yet contemplated a II. No, I never wrote for a 709; the closest I got was converting IBM 7094 code to run on the UNIVAC 1108.
There are some interesting, obsolete features. The FREQUENCY statement preceded optimizing compilers, and indeed PRAGMA or other human-judgment features in other languages. FREQUENCY follows an IF statement, and expresses the programmer's expectation of the frequency with which each branch will be taken. The compiler would use this information to order the comparisons in machine code. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- When I started programming (in 1967) Fortran was considered a vulgar American language (at least at many Dutch Universities), so I was forced to use Algol 60. I started programming Fortran in earnest at Duke University (on the IBM 360-75 of the Triangle Research Center) in 1969. This was in Fortran 66. "Frequency" had gone from the language, PRAGMA was still present in the CDC dialect, but not in IBM's. When I later returned to Holland, mathematicians had lost the language battle to the physicists and engineers and Fortran was available everywhere in the country. --Paul Wormer 05:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Some issues I couldn't fix myself.
"This the more likely, as a very noticeable feature of all Fortran versions..."
This doesn't make much sense grammatically, but I'm not quite sure what the author inteded to say.Drew R. Smith 09:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- "This the more likely, because a very noticeable feature of all Fortran versions..." Is that better? --Paul Wormer 11:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- I guess the missing "is" was making the phrase odd, so I fixed that. --Daniel Mietchen 12:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Daniel. It's a run-on sentence now, but that's definitely better than what we had before. Again, I would have fixed it myself had I understood the authors intent.Drew R. Smith 13:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)