From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Tue Mar 2 00:53:21 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www2.open-std.org Received: by www2.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 940CFC3BA27; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 00:53:21 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from mail1.cray.com (mail1.cray.com [136.162.62.100]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8F7BC3BA1E for ; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 00:53:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from beaver.us.cray.com (beaver.us.cray.com [172.30.74.51]) by mail1.cray.com (8.13.6/8.13.3/gw-5323) with ESMTP id o21NrHYM005362 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 1 Mar 2010 17:53:18 -0600 (CST) Received: from cfexcas02.americas.cray.com (cfexcas02-2.us.cray.com [172.30.74.228]) by beaver.us.cray.com (8.13.8/8.13.3/hub-5273) with ESMTP id o21NrGdk004658; Mon, 1 Mar 2010 17:53:16 -0600 Received: from fortran.us.cray.com (172.31.19.200) by cfexcas02.americas.cray.com (172.30.74.226) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.393.1; Mon, 1 Mar 2010 17:53:15 -0600 Message-ID: <4B8C5370.3080908@cray.com> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 17:53:20 -0600 From: Bill Long Reply-To: Organization: Cray Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: fortran standards email list for J3 Cc: "sc22wg5@open-std.org" Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4204) RE: RE: 43 Fortran compilers References: <20100301174456.8A65CC178D9@www2.open-std.org> <20100301181556.45D4FC178D9@www2.open-std.org> <4B8C47B9.8030904@cray.com> <20100301233719.1DD7AC3BA1E@www2.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20100301233719.1DD7AC3BA1E@www2.open-std.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Cray-VirusStatus: clean Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk I suspect the University of Waterloo compilers were Watfor and Watfiv. These are what were used in by the programming classes I took as an undergrad (1969-73) on an IBM 360/65. These "compilers" were really interpreters that translated the code very quickly and produced detailed error messages, including at runtime. The execution speed was poor. However, for a bunch of newbie programmers who compiled a program many times before it ran (those were the other clowns in the class, not me, of course :) ) this was the ideal balance. Even when I migrated to the IBM Fortran "H" compiler (much better execution performance), Watfiv was still useful as a debugging tool. Cheers, Bill Loren P Meissner wrote: > There was some Fortran language research going on at Univ of Waterloo (in > Ont, Canada) by 1974. > My copy of papers from JPL/SIGNUM Fortran Preprocessor Workshop (Nov 1974) > [which was largely motivated by Fortran response to the "structured > programming" fad] includes a one-page paper "Designing a portable > preprocessor" by M Malcolm and L Rogers of Waterloo. It mentions "Altran > translator and run-time support software are written in portable Fortran > except for some M6 macro calls . The M6 macro processor is written in > portable Fortran ." - Was this "portable Fortran" the same as "Waterloo > Fortran"? > > Loren P Meissner > (Have you ever imagined a world without hypothetical situations?) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: j3-bounces@j3-fortran.org [mailto:j3-bounces@j3-fortran.org] On Behalf > Of Bill Long > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 3:03 PM > To: fortran standards email list for J3 > Cc: sc22wg5@open-std.org > Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4198) RE: 43 Fortran compilers > > > > Ian D Chivers wrote: >> I would be interested in knowing what they were. >> >> I worked at Imperial College from 1978-1986 On CDC kit mainly (6400, >> 6500, 170, 174) and we had >> >> CDC Fortran >> Minnesota Fortran > > Indeed, M77. I looked at the manual and found that, in 1980, M77 had the > radical extension of A .op. B where op was and, or, xor, ... and A and B > were numeric type variables, with the operations bitwise. Only 30 years > ago. Maybe this idea needs a bit more time to mature. :) > > Cheers > Bill > > >> As the main two supported Fortran compilers. >> >> I also vaguely remember a Waterloo Fortran. >> >> There was a CDC 1700 and I think that had a Fortran compiler. >> Would that have counted as another compiler? >> >> Cheers >> >> ian >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: j3-bounces@j3-fortran.org [mailto:j3-bounces@j3-fortran.org] On >> Behalf Of David Muxworthy >> Sent: 01 March 2010 17:47 >> To: sc22wg5@open-std.org >> Subject: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4197) 43 Fortran compilers >> >> One or two people seemed surprised when I said at the WG5 meeting that >> there were 43 Fortran compilers in the early 1960s. The figure was >> taken from Oswald, H. (1964), 'The various Fortrans', Datamation vol >> 10 (August), pp 25-29. Oswald was reviewing 16 different Fortran >> systems. I think I also said outside the meeting that the first >> Fortran on a non-IBM machine was in 1961-2. In fact it was in 1960 on >> a Philco 2000, but not called Fortran. The first non-IBM 'Fortran' >> was on a Univac SS80 in 1961. >> >> David >> _______________________________________________ >> J3 mailing list >> J3@j3-fortran.org >> http://j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> J3 mailing list >> J3@j3-fortran.org >> http://j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3 > -- Bill Long longb@cray.com Fortran Technical Support & voice: 651-605-9024 Bioinformatics Software Development fax: 651-605-9142 Cray Inc./Cray Plaza, Suite 210/380 Jackson St./St. Paul, MN 55101