bobal@microsoft.UUCP (Bob Allison) (10/05/88)
Bill Leonard gives an impassioned argument on why X3J3 should ignore WG-5's ultimatums. Bill then argues that there is really only interest in the ANSI Fortran standard, partially since it is what typically becomes the FIPS standard. But then Bill makes a parenthetical comment which I found thought-provoking. It is interesting to me that Bill makes the comment that since the DoD has finally begun to get serious about Ada recently, interest in a new Fortran FIPS standard will diminish. I don't have the contacts with people who do significant government business. I know that there are people on the net who do: do you agree with this assertion? Don't just fly off the handle, I am asking a serious question: do we expect new contracts with the U.S. Government to require a FIPS Fortran compiler less and less often (and consequently an Ada standard more often)? Under what time scale? Is it already happening? Are people being forced to bid a project assuming the project will be done in Ada? I am not crossposting to comp.lang.ada because I am interested in people who would normally use Fortran who might be forced to use Ada. Bill very correctly points out that economics drives (or kills) the development of a compiler for most vendors, and most have significant interest in government business. Can we expect Fortran to continue its widespread availability if a new standard comes out (eliminating the Fortran 77 standard) and the government doesn't use it very much? Bob Allison
meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) (10/05/88)
In article <140@microsoft.UUCP>, bobal@microsoft.UUCP (Bob Allison) writes: > do we expect new contracts with the U.S. Government to require a FIPS > Fortran compiler less and less often (and consequently an Ada standard > more often)? Under what time scale? Is it already happening? Are people > being forced to bid a project assuming the project will be done in Ada? > I am not crossposting to comp.lang.ada because I am interested in people > who would normally use Fortran who might be forced to use Ada. Well, as far as FHWA & FDOT are concerned (not to mention the state & local versions), it's only in the last few years that they were willing to consider anything besides FORTRAN. Even 77 & things like Flecs only REALLY came much into use after 81 or 82. Assembly language was also still common then, & still is for on-street micros & such. JHK (whose systems practice is in Atlanta) was 1 of the consultants who pushed for structured FORTRAN (77, etc) and then for C. But still, 1/2 of their development contracts specify FORTRAN, and I have heard nothing of Ada there. ===================================================================== Miles O'Neal decvax!gatech!stiatl!meo
fred@smoke.ARPA (Fred Bunn ) (10/05/88)
Here at the Army's Ballistic Research Lab we have many mid-sized computers and a couple of super-computers. To my knowledge none of these has an ADA compiler. Apparently DOD is mandating ADA for imbedded computers (those in weapon systems) but for scientific and technical work, there seem to be little or no push towards ADA. Ditto for accounting/business type applications.
lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Hugh LaMaster) (10/05/88)
In article <140@microsoft.UUCP> bobal@microsoft.UUCP (Bob Allison (uunet!microsoft!bobal)) writes: >do we expect new contracts with the U.S. Government to require a FIPS >Fortran compiler less and less often (and consequently an Ada standard >more often)? Under what time scale? Is it already happening? Are people I expect that for procurements of embedded systems, and some realtime systems used primarily for data acquisition and/or control, Fortran may indeed be on the way out. For procurements of machines used for numerical analysis, or data reduction, Fortran will continue to be required. -- Hugh LaMaster, m/s 233-9, UUCP ames!lamaster NASA Ames Research Center ARPA lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov Moffett Field, CA 94035 Phone: (415)694-6117
lamson@sierra.uucp (scott h lamson) (10/06/88)
> : bobal@microsoft.UUCP (Bob Allison) writes: >Can we expect Fortran to continue >its widespread availability if a new standard comes out (eliminating the >Fortran 77 standard) and the government doesn't use it very much? While ADA will increase in importance for delivered software, there is too much research and engineering work supported by Fortran analytic codes to make Fortran no longer needed. Even for govt funded development, where analysis is required to support engineering (CFD to design turbine blades, etc) there is nothing I have heard of to suggest ADA will be required or even encouraged to use in CAE codes. I see Fortran having a respectable market regardless of ADA or FIPS. Scott| ARPA: lamson@ge-crd.arpa Lamson| UUCP: uunet!steinmetz!sierra!lamson (518)387-5795| UUCP: uunet!steinmetz!lamson!crd