Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!yale!cmcl2!lanl!jlg From: jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: My widget is more portable than yours (was Fortan versus C) Message-ID: <4111@lanl.gov> Date: 24 Sep 88 00:49:47 GMT References: <1052@amelia.nas.nasa.gov> Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory Lines: 35 From article <1052@amelia.nas.nasa.gov>, by fouts@lemming.nas.nasa.gov.nas.nasa.gov (Marty Fouts): > *PAY ATTENTION* THIS IS A FLAME > [...] > What you have done with the above is taken a quote out of context and > changed its meaning. I wasn't discussing *standard conforming* > code, I was discussing *portable* code. Radically different > issues. (See my subject line.) You claimed by anecedote that C was not > portable because of you had some examples of C code which hadn't been > well written for portability. I gave the above as an example of a > Fortran code which wasn't written for portability and was difficult to > port. [...] *PAY ATTENTION* THIS IA ALSO A FLAME!! I began this discussion with a statement that _Fortran_ was more portable than C. You _did_not_ give an example of Fortran code of any kind. You gave an example of Fortran-like code which wouldn't port!! So, I WAS DISCUSSING STANDARD CONFRMING CODE!!!!! When I say Fortran, I mean standard conforming code!! I often mention extensions, but I always clearly say that they are extensions. Since C has no standard (and the proposed one is deliberately ambiguous) I still claim that _Fortran_ is more portable than C. > [...] The Fortran standard allows me to > make all the out of bounds references I want. [...] No, it doesn't!!! Many Fortran compilers allow you to. Fortran doesn't! END FLAME? (probably not - but one has hopes.) J. Giles Los Alamos