Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Apple Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Win-Lose-Draw who wrote (148112)	1/12/2013 4:30:51 PM
From: Stock Puppy	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213173

OT Hell yeah, Fortran still lives. It shouldn't, but it does... Shush, you! I was going to write a book with someone about the new standard back in the late '80s, was even an IEEE member with a SIG-FORTRASH, eh, SIG-FORTRAN specialty. I knew (or thought I knew) all the ins and outs and the party tricks with FORTRAN-77, so the new standard should be a cinch. But it was a standard decided by committee (trouble...) - members of which probably didn't get along (more trouble...) so I suppose so it never came out for years and years and eventually I lost interest and embraced C. Actually I embraced C long before but it sounds better if I said I was monogamous. And buddy, it's not Fortran, it's FORTRAN (you SHOUT it to the world! Caps, dude!!!) If you've got an unwieldy block of code and it's tested and it works and it's efficient, why bother translate to the latest fad - especially if doing that introduces instabilities? Especially if the code is made of spaghetti, and FORTRAN programs are made of the finest angel hair pasta.