Path: ...!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: The joy of FORTRAN
Date: 25 Sep 2024 21:50:29 GMT
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <lljet5FmmqaU16@mid.individual.net>
References: <pan$96411$d204da43$cc34bb91$1fe98651@linux.rocks>
	<6tDIO.25202$afc4.3071@fx42.iad> <vd1gte$bs7$1@gal.iecc.com>
	<vd1v01$3r2r4$2@dont-email.me> <vd200f$cgp$1@gal.iecc.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net ZhjcLsmj0LPHcDbpFW8hOQAs3c+LtFClpOoP/tDClXuWVh3d/l
Cancel-Lock: sha1:V7mg1iu7GE9ootDy5Kgea/4IbMk= sha256:jZC0O5IJTgH/dd/+xq0/XM6RdI/R9pZbKF45C0cWAjY=
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
Bytes: 2091

On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 21:40:31 +0000, John Levine wrote:

> According to Lawrence D'Oliveiro  <ldo@nz.invalid>:
>>On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 17:22:54 -0000 (UTC), John Levine wrote:
>>
>>> COBOL had (has) very powerful data structures ...
>>
>>No pointers, no typedefs, no dynamic arrays, no array lower bounds other
>>than 1, no parametric types ...
> 
> It was 1960.  Fortran had arrays of numbers, COBOL had structures
> including arrays of structures.  If your point is that we have figured
> stuff out in the following 60 years, well, yes, we have.
> 
> I guess Algol60 had dynamic arrays but no structures which limited how
> useful they were.  And the call-by-name mistake made implementation very
> painful.

I like Atlas Autocode; pity it never took off. Algol with the difficult 
implementation bits removed. But still powerful.

There are, however, a few implementations of Edinburgh IMP (a close 
derivative), and that was used for real stuff, albeit in a limited orbit. 
In fact, I have just written a compiler for it, although the target system 
is unlikely to excite anyone.



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org