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=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,ab1d177a5a26577d X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder1.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder2.enfer-du-nord.net!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed5.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!news.wiretrip.org!news.dizum.com!sewer-output!mail2news From: Nomen Nescio Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: What's wrong with C++? References: Message-ID: Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 01:55:08 +0100 (CET) Mail-To-News-Contact: abuse@dizum.com Organization: mail2news@dizum.com Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17467 Date: 2011-02-20T01:55:08+01:00 List-Id: > It is Fortran, not FORTRAN. No amount of snot-nosed kids writing their own standards can change the fact that FORTRAN is FORTRAN. It will never be Fortran, not if we have to bomb them into eternity! > You mean you did not look at any fortran code for the last 21 years? I did, but not FORTRAN that was written on a PC ;) > "!" is the fortran comment since fortran 1990. C comment is long dead. No it's not and I have the IBM FORTRAN compilers from 1968 and 1974 to prove it. It's still supported until today on IBM FORTRAN. > May be you should try to look at some Fortran code? :) Maybe you should have some respect for your elders ;)