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