gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (08/29/87)
In article <1022@argus.UUCP> ken@argus.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) writes: >Hm. If you write something in FORTRAN 2, it will be accepted by FORTRAN 4, >FORTRAN 66, and FORTRAN 77. FORTRAN II and FORTRAN-4 are IBM-specific. FORTRAN 66 code that uses Hollerith (packed character) constants is NOT acceptable to a pure FORTRAN 77 compiler. Almost all vendors added their own extensions (originally to ANS FORTRAN 66, carried over to their FORTRAN 77 products), and many of these were, though non-portable, too useful to be ignored. DEC's FORTRAN as found on VAX/VMS is often the target language for other vendors' compilers. The person who suggested that all languages had mutually incompatible dialects was quite correct. What is needed for portablility of code written in a particular language is a SUFFICIENTLY RICH standard for the language. That is one area where many language standards are inadequate. Unaugmented FORTRAN 77, for example, does not have nearly enough OPEN facilities. X3J11 is making every effort to ensure that the standard C language will include enough power to encourage its use in portable application programming. That is why, for example, so much of the UNIX C library was adopted into the proposed C standard.