«

"jacob navia" <> wrote in message
news:46792d42$0$5104$...
> BWIGLEY wrote:
> > "Kenneth Brody" <> wrote in message
> > news:...
> >> You Know You've Been Reading clc Too Long When...
> >>
> >> You switch to another Usenet group, see a thread with the subject
> >> "bread", and think "but bread() isn't standard -- it's a FreeBSD
> >> extension".
> >
> > Um... What sort of newsgroup has postings about bread? It
sounds...
> > /interesting/.
> >
> >
>
> Yes, /interesting/!!!
>
> This group is a bore. The only messages are

Come on, It's C. It's not comp.lang.sugar-faeries or something. What
do you expect? Anyway, Richard Heathfield can be quite funny
sometimes.

> -----
> "I pressed "compile" button but it did not work".
>
> Help MEEEEEE!!!
> ------
> Please do my homework.
> -----
> I wrote i++=i++; but it doesn't work
>
> WHY???
> Always when you start some interesting stuff the same people
> will start yelling:
>
> OFF TOPIC!!! OFF TOPIC!!!

There'll always be Off Topic stuff, and there'll always be people
complaining about it. Personally I feel that threads like this should
be replied to in the manner that they are asked. If they wanna act
retarded then act retarded back.

> Because they would like to get the language back to 1990...
>
> There are no discussions about software design, software
maintenance,
> debugging and all the things that really interest the programmers!

Yeah, that sort of thing would be nice.

As if by magic, Christopher Benson-Manica appeared !

> Richard Heathfield <> wrote:
>
>> No, we'd like to get the language forward to 1999 so that we can all
>> sing from the same sheet again, but implementors show little sign of
>> co-operating.
>
> <semi OT>Just for the sake of comparison, how long did it take for the
> Fortran 90 standard to overtake Fortran 77? (Or did it?)
>

Certainly less than a decade. The vast majority of current compilers
are ( supposedly ) fully compliant to the Fortran 95 standard.

The latest Fortran standard is 2003. There are, to my knowledge, no fully
compliant compilers yet, though IBM and NAG are both close. See e.g.


http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infoce...w_features.htm

Ian

Ian Bush <> wrote:

> As if by magic, Christopher Benson-Manica appeared !

(It WAS magic.)

> > <semi OT>Just for the sake of comparison, how long did it take for the
> > Fortran 90 standard to overtake Fortran 77? (Or did it?)

> Certainly less than a decade. The vast majority of current compilers
> are ( supposedly ) fully compliant to the Fortran 95 standard.

Hm. Would it be fair to suggest that Fortan 90 brought more needed
features to Fortan than C99 brought to C users, spurring the eventual
acceptance of the new Fortran standard whereas C99 shows little sign
of overtaking C89?

--
C. Benson Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
cbmanica(at)gmail.com | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.

As if by magic, Christopher Benson-Manica appeared !

> Ian Bush <> wrote:
>
>> As if by magic, Christopher Benson-Manica appeared !
>
> (It WAS magic.)
>
>> > <semi OT>Just for the sake of comparison, how long did it take for the
>> > Fortran 90 standard to overtake Fortran 77? (Or did it?)
>
>> Certainly less than a decade. The vast majority of current compilers
>> are ( supposedly ) fully compliant to the Fortran 95 standard.
>
> Hm. Would it be fair to suggest that Fortan 90 brought more needed
> features to Fortan than C99 brought to C users, spurring the eventual
> acceptance of the new Fortran standard whereas C99 shows little sign
> of overtaking C89?
>

I can't really say whether it is fair to suggest or not - C is very much
my second language and I rarely use it. I read this newsgroup so that
on the occasions that I do need it I don't screw up too badly.

But ... On the acceptance of F90 there was initially a lot of skepticism
from the user base, at least in my experience. However one or two features
seemed nice ( e.g. the new array features and that radical innovation,
dynamic memory allocation ), so the tried that and saw that they
were good. So they tried something else, and then something else ...

Ian