Re: Fortran vs C++ vs. etc (has little to do with realtime anymore)

[rhawkins@iastate.edu (Rick Hawkins)]

In article <vi8oh5keyy1.fsf@drabble.fnal.gov>,
Oleg Krivosheev  <kriol@fnal.gov> wrote:

>Hi, Rick

hi

>rhawkins@iastate.edu (Rick Hawkins) writes:

>> In article <vi8k9ge42bw.fsf@drabble.fnal.gov>,
>> Oleg Krivosheev  <kriol@fnal.gov> wrote:

>> >rhawkins@iastate.edu (Rick Hawkins) writes:

>> >> yes!!!  learning c++ after not using c for ten years took some work.
>> >> Fortran after 12 years didn't; I could sit back donw and code.

>> >well, if you're talking about F77, yes. FYI, there are already
>> >F90 and F95 here. I doubt you can program in F95 without
>> >learning - just as you did with C++.

>> I'm using F90; It was Fortran IV on a pr1me and almost-f77 on tops 20
>> back then.

>well, that's exactly what i was asking about - there were NO
>F90/F95 twelve years ago ! If you're using F90 now, you learned
>it somehow. Either i misunderstood something or our claim

Back then I used F77 and almost F77 (seems to me that DEC FORTRAN on
TOPS 20 was somewhere between 66 and 77.  But hey, we had a
preproccessor fof this c++ thing :).   That was about 83-84.  I used
some c back then, too.

Rolling ahead to 95, learing c++ took work.  I recoded a summer's worth
of c++ and smalltalk to fortran 77 in a day and a half, not having
looked at fortran since 84.

Roll ahead to a couple of weeks ago, i picked up a F90 book, read a
couple of chapters, and am happily using lots of it.

>sorry, i have only min ;)

>
>well, try example below for min with
>arbitrary larger number of arguments. Hope it can help

I'm definitely saving this one.  Thanks.  There's a coupel of future
pojects that will need objects, which will probably mean some c++.
-- 
R E HAWKINS
rhawkins@iastate.edu

These opinions will not be those of ISU until they pay my retainer.