cn7gr8ag@ariel.unm.edu (11/18/88)
Being a satisfied Lightspeed C customer , I've come to wonder if Symantec has anything planned with Fortran. I really enyoy the environment that Lightspeed C offers for code development and being an engineer I do a lot of programming in Fortran (and don't have a great deal of choise, often) I'd really like have a similar system for the majority of my programming work. Considering the expansion of the Mac into the engineering world in ever growing numbers, a Lightspeed Fortran might be just the ticket to help reduce the development cycle for Fortran programs and make our lives easier and programming more enjoyable. Bill Rider
siegel@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel) (11/18/88)
In article <3964@charon.unm.edu> cn7gr8ag@ariel.unm.edu.UUCP (Bill Rider) writes: > >Considering the expansion of the Mac into the engineering world in ever >growing numbers, a Lightspeed Fortran might be just the ticket to help >reduce the development cycle for Fortran programs and make our lives >easier and programming more enjoyable. > I can't comment on future plans, and I really don't know what's planned with respect to future language products. However, the decision to develop and release a new product is dependent on these factors: - can it be done? - is the market large enough to make it worthwhile? The primary function of a company like Symantec is to produce high-quality, useful tools. Right up there in importance is the drive to stay in business. In other words, if it proves profitable to produce a Fortran, we will consider doing so. --Rich Rich Siegel Staff Software Developer THINK Technologies Division, Symantec Corp. Internet: singer@endor.harvard.edu UUCP: ..harvard!endor!singer Phone: (617) 275-4800 x305 Any opinions stated in this article do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of Symantec Corporation or its employees.
falken@caen.engin.umich.edu (David R Falkenburg) (11/19/88)
> In article <3964@charon.unm.edu> cn7gr8ag@ariel.unm.edu.UUCP (Bill Rider) writes: > > > >Considering the expansion of the Mac into the engineering world in ever > >growing numbers, a Lightspeed Fortran might be just the ticket to help > >reduce the development cycle for Fortran programs and make our lives > >easier and programming more enjoyable. > > FORTRAN, like ot or not, is still used by ALOT of people in the engineering community. Not having a decent FORTRAN development system (sufficiently MacIsh) really hurts the Mac in terms of it's use in scientific computing here at U of M. People USE IBM-PC-XTs to write software in FORTRAN even though they use Macs for almost all other microcomputing applications. The interfaces to compiler's such as Absofts (and hence Microsoft's) FORTRAN are old, and non-intuitive. Newer compiler's requiring MPW are nice but still require MPW to run (not a selling opint for some people). While the compiler's themselves seem to be ok once you've got the source code into them, the user interface leaves much to be desired. What people are looking for is a sufficiently Mac-Ish development environment. Companies like Absoft and others could take their compilers as they currently stand and add integrated editors / linkers alot of people here would probably switch from IBM-PC to Macintosh II as a standard engineerin microcomputer. Apple's been trying to tout the Mac II (and Mac IIx) as a engineering workstation, but until some better quality software appearsfor the machine (i.e a nice ftn compiler):q! -- Dave Falkenburg @ University of Michigan Computer Aided Engineering Network ARPA: falken@caen.engin.umich.edu UUCP: umix!caen.engin.umich.edu!falken
falken@caen.engin.umich.edu (David R Falkenburg) (11/19/88)
n case my earlier message was garbled, what i meant to say was: If apple plans to market the Mac II (and IIx) as an engineering workstation, it's in their best interest to have a nice (MacIsh) fortran complier avaiable. -dave falkenburg -- Dave Falkenburg @ University of Michigan Computer Aided Engineering Network ARPA: falken@caen.engin.umich.edu UUCP: umix!caen.engin.umich.edu!falken
jcl@hpausla.HP.COM (Jeff Laing) (11/21/88)
Rich wrote > I can't comment on future plans, and I really don't know what's planned > with respect to future language products. Might we see a LightspeedAsm? Imaging being able to write those assembler routines in REAL assembler, rather than asm{} with its peculiarities. Actually, I am amazed at the number of people I know who use LightspeedC as their ASSEMBLER of choice.... > - can it be done? Could it be hard to do better than MDS? MPW, I haven't seen, but I know it has a steeper learning curve than Lightspeed C and so I doubt I will ever worry about MPW-C (I bought MPW with TML Pascal-II; the price was right) > - is the market large enough to make it worthwhile? Dunno. You could write me down as one though. 8-)