nospam at see.signature
Mon Aug 24 03:58:40 CEST 2009
sturlamolden <sturlamolden at yahoo.no> wrote:
> Does anyone use OOP in Fortran anyway?
Presumably not many people yet because...
> And Fortran 2003 compilers are not ubiquitous.
I'd not only agree, I'd say that was quite a bit understated. Last time
I checked, the number of Fortran 2003 compilers available on the most
widely used platforms was zero, which is quite a bit short of
ubiquitous. No I don't have an IBM workstation handy; or a Cray. Nor do
I did try playing with the Fortran OOP stuff quite a few years ago, when
NAG first added some of the OOP features to their f95 compiler. But
alas, although they added some of the OOP features, there were critical
parts that were not included. Play with it a little is all I could do. I
couldn't write any serious code, or even "play" very extensively. (Lack
of allocatable scalars was a show stopper; it seems so simple and isn't
even normally identified as an OOP feature per se, but you need it to do
much with OOP in F2003).
I'm told that NAG's 5.2 finally has the needed stuff, but it has been an
awful long time in coming... and still isn't yet here for anything but
Linux (I'm told "soon"). Some other compilers are also getting there.
But there is just no way that most people have spent much time
developing with compilers that adequately supported the f2003 OOP
(I'd cite my formal comment on f2008, and maybe David Muxworthy's recent
article as well, but we've already been down that path.)
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
More information about the Python-list