[Beowulf] g77 limits...
Gerry Creager N5JXS
gerry.creager at tamu.edu
Thu Feb 23 12:41:55 PST 2006
Jim Lux wrote:
> At 10:54 AM 2/23/2006, Robert G. Brown wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Joe Landman wrote:
>>>> b) Alas, I'm probably going to have to become one (again).
>>> Heh... people complained that I wrote my Perl, C, and even Assembler
>>> in Fortran for a while. Now they complain that I write it all in C.
>>> Its not so hard to switch back and forth. The hard part is the IO.
>>> Format statements are annoying.
>> Yeah, I/O sucks. String manipulation in general used to suck. Column
>> indentation and continuation rules suck (if they're still there).
> Surely you saved some of your old drum cards? Makes the whole
> indentation thing easier.
And an old drum! But eventually, I trained my thumbs to do 6 spaces on
>> having structs and pointers sucks (I just LOVE to play pointer magic
>> games and roll my own data objects).
> All art and creativity is enhanced by limititations of the medium. I,
> for one, find that the fact that FORTRAN has a native complex type
> (since IV days, and maybe even FORTRAN II had it) and exponentiation as
> a native operator has been more useful than structs and pointers (all
> that dynamic allocations stuff just gets you into trouble) which only
> get you into trouble anyway). And FORTRAN does have the EQUIVALENCE
> statement, which, especially with named common, can be used to create a
> form of struct.
> Sure, FORTRAN's not a string processing language (it's FORmula
> TRANslation, after all). It's meant to do REAL science and engineering
> work, like finite element models for weather prediction and nuclear
> weapons design, or orbital mechanics calculations for ICBMs and Apollo.
> If you want to move data from one column to another you can use RPG or
> COBOL or plugboards on your Electric Accounting Machinery. You want to
> do that namby pamby character and string stuff that english and
> linguistics types are interested in, or work in abstract worlds, use
> SNOBOL or LISP.
A. No one should HAVE to use COBOL. I've written the one program I was
required to write therein.
B. Didn't know anyone else remembered SNOBOL.
>> All of which may well be doable
>> nowadays -- did I mention that it was fortran >>IV<< that I learned?
>> Running on an IBM mainframe running MVS, JCL, HASP and all that?
> yes, modern FORTRANs allows user defined types, etc. (although g77 might
> not. An old manual I have says that STRUCTURE, UNION, RECORD, and MAP
> are all not yet implemented) Note, all upper case, because real
> programmers use punched cards, and neither the 026 or 029 keypunches
> have lower case.
The HP Fortran5/pre77 implemented all these about 1980! And, upper-case
is good for the soul. Real programmers really do shout!
>> Hopefully "modern" fortran is a whole lot closer to C and supports some
>> sort of struct/union or equivalent thereof, and some sort of dynamical
>> memory allocation.
> F77 had dynamic array allocation (you can do DIMENSION X(*))
>>>> c) Working on some problems with potentially very large memory
>>> Shouldn't be too hard using g95/gfortran. Can you look at out of
>>> core type solutions (blocked access).
>> Don't know. FIRST the funding, THEN the work. No Way In Hell am I
>> going to learn fortran (again, any flavor) unless I have to, that is to
>> say "Will program for food"...;-)
>> Though I agree, sure, and said as much to greg. I'm HOPING that this is
>> possible, although just finding a common denominator a la F IV, F77,
>> F95, gfortran -- standards are your friend, sure, and F95 compilers can
>> PROBABLY still compile my old FIV sources, but stil...
Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager at tamu.edu
Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University
Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.862.3983
Office: 1700 Research Parkway Ste 160, TAMU, College Station, TX 77843
More information about the Beowulf