dillon@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Ian Dillon) (08/25/89)
I'm curious as to what the applications for ratfor would be. If you are
a frequent user of this processor, would you mind e-mailing a response
to the address below. Also, the "man" page describing ratfor looks like:
NAME
ratfor - rational Fortran dialect
DESCRIPTION
Ratfor converts a rational dialect of Fortran into ordinary
irrational Fortran. Ratfor provides control flow constructs
essentially identical to those in C:
What's the difference between rational and irrational Fortran? Finally,
are there any organizations which actively recruit Ratfor programmers?
Thanks in advance!
Ian dillon@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Ian Dillon) (08/26/89)
Oooops, I forgot to throw in my address: * I really need to know | Ian Dillon * * I learned in kindergarden | * * | BITNET: dillon@uhccux.bitnet * * > R. Fulgham < | I-NET: dillon@uhccux.UHCC.HAWAII.EDU *
bam@bnlux0.bnl.gov (Bruce Martin) (08/26/89)
---- In response to inquiry about "Ratfor", ---- "irrational Fortran", current job market, etc. Ratfor was a language that was a superset of Fortran-66, with some good stuff like if/then/else (but spelled rather differently from what later emerged as Fortran-77). After writing code in Ratfor, one would then use a Ratfor pre-processor to generate standard-conforming Fortran-66 code to be compiled. In ancient times, some people thought it useful to do this. [Among the drawbacks were the fact that the Ratfor syntax was often ugly, the Ratfor code was not portable unless the receiving site also had a Ratfor preprocessor, and the generated code was unmaintainable. The Ratfor code was not very readable by Fortran programmers, and the generated Fortran-66 code was an unmaintainable bowl of spagghetti. However, during execution, run-time errors (or debugger breakpoints and tracebacks) were of course referenced to the machine-generated Fortran-66 code, with no traceback to the human-written Ratfor code; this feature often provided provided great fun and enjoyment for otherwise idle hands and brains. Nevertheless, Ratfor enjoyed some popularity back in the days when the "Fortran" language was defined by X3.9-1966.] The words "rational" and "irrational" are mere rhetoric, presumably criticizing John Backus, et al for their incompetence in not predicting the Bohm & Jacopini proof (which occurred only 12 years later). There are no such languages as "rational Fortran" and "irrational Fortran", and the market for programmers in any Fortran-66 based dialect is quite slim, nowadays. I have no explanation for the existence of this pre-processor on current systems, except to handle old Ratfor sources. I can think of no reason to write new programs in the Ratfor dialect, given that the Fortran compiler on your system undoubtably accepts Fortran-77 (or maybe Fortran-88). An insidious but (presumably) rare problem with old Ratfor programs is that a Fortran-66 compiler may not be available and the preprocessor- generated code might not have exactly the same semantics in Fortran-77. (N.B. There were more than two dozen instances of upward-incompatability between Fortran-66 and Fortran-77. Incidentally, there are none between Fortran-77 and Fortran-88, in the draft proposed standards now under public review.) -/s/- BAM Bruce A. Martin Grumman Aircraft Systems [Address provided identification only.] (Mailstop B02-106) [Every conceivable disclaimer applies.] Bethpage, NY 11714 [Opinions are mine only -- & I reserve] (516) 577-1426 [the right to change my mind at will!!]