From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 1014db,edd83659ff9286d0 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Thread: 103376,1cd9f7e5a0d12003 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,1cd9f7e5a0d12003 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gid4516fb5702,gida07f3367d7,gid8d3408f8c3,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.68.191.225 with SMTP id hb1mr25042497pbc.5.1337648875768; Mon, 21 May 2012 18:07:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Path: pr3ni23764pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!goblin2!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!exi-in1.telstra.net!news.telstra.net!61.9.128.156.MISMATCH!viwinnwcl01.internal.bigpond.com!viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com.POSTED!7564ea0f!not-for-mail From: "Terence" Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.fortran References: <95634f38f6ee0d116da523fdc2c9f5ca@dizum.com> <00240c6dd26962f50d5c57a933c137ef@dizum.com> Subject: Re: condition true or false? -> (-1 < sizeof("test")) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4927.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4927.1200 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 11:08:17 +1000 NNTP-Posting-Host: 121.210.1.137 X-Complaints-To: abuse@bigpond.net.au X-Trace: viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com 1337648874 121.210.1.137 (Tue, 22 May 2012 11:07:54 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 11:07:54 EST Organization: BigPond Date: 2012-05-22T11:08:17+10:00 List-Id: Unsigned integers can be simple signed integers with enough bits to never exceed the maximum positive number desired. Phylosophically there is no difference. It's only the precision overflow than can cause a mathemetical error in simple arithmetic. Postings like this (not the integer bit, but the surrounding miasma of complex code) cause me to ask 'WHY'? Fortran has become more and more complex as the committees approve new extensions or features and then vendors comply, and then users are 'forced' to buy a new version or pay for an update if they want continued support. And finally coding slows down. It really doesn't have to be this way. You've all read my discourses on continuing to use F77. I have my reasons, even if I do also own a Fortran 90/95 compiler The only negative that I have met (others might not) to my 1983 F77 compiler is the limitation on contiguous memory space. I don't need any of the 'advances' beyond that version. All the file formats I could possibly use are there. I can re-express any modern Fortran code in an equivalent F77 code except for the contigous memory requirements. (If I have to, I use work files). I develop (very quickly indeed) in F77. If the client wants a native Windows version I just recompile with the F95 one. I don't have problems with a new setup on a newer computer (I'm now on my gifted Mac Professional using MS Version 7; three earlier machine still work fine). How many postings are about actually getting a compiler to work? I have no problems with compiling, linking or even running on pretty much any of my programs on any machine. How many postings are about how to do this, or interpret the errors and warnings that a problematic compiler-linker setup brings? If I were to teach (again) any students in Fortran, I would still start with F77. Only later, would I point out what you get with more recent compilers; the use of modules and intent definitions; the distinction between public and private data that is useful for OOPs work (strange abbreviation!), the shortening of code (and reliability) with matrix-formulated operations and so on, but... There are some English dialects where every third or forth word is an automatic obcenity (e.g. Geordie). I prefer the language versions without the unnecesary stuff. There's more clarity.