comp.lang.ada
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: ig25@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Thomas Koenig)
Subject: Object-oriented Fortran vs. Ada 95?
Date: 1996/02/19
Date: 1996-02-19T00:00:00+00:00	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4gajp4$6aj@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: danpop.824601200@rscernix

[Please not the crosspost to comp.lang.ada and comp.lang.fortran]

In comp.lang.fortran, danpop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote:

>Even if OO features will prove inexpensive to implement, is it worth
>adding features which are irrelevant to (at least) 99% of the Fortran
>user base?

Probably not.

Also, I'm not too sure how much such an OO Fortran would be different
from Ada 95.

If you compare Fortran 95 with Ada 95, what obstacles to high
performance do you see in Ada?  (And please, nobody say anything
about runtime checks this round, that's been beaten to death ;-)




       reply	other threads:[~1996-02-19  0:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <DMpy3E.6Lr@csc.liv.ac.uk>
     [not found] ` <4fu3vd$t0n@jeeves.usfca.edu>
     [not found]   ` <danpop.824601200@rscernix>
1996-02-19  0:00     ` Thomas Koenig [this message]
1996-02-19  0:00       ` Object-oriented Fortran vs. Ada 95? Wclodius
1996-02-20  0:00   ` Israel Gale
1996-02-20  0:00     ` Steve Lionel
1996-02-20  0:00   ` Ted Dennison
1996-02-21  0:00     ` Sergio Gelato
1996-02-21  0:00       ` Ted Dennison
1996-02-24  0:00         ` The future of Fortran Kent Paul Dolan
1996-02-24  0:00     ` Object-oriented Fortran vs. Ada 95? Rick Lutowski
replies disabled

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox