From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Sat Nov 6 16:54:46 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 DF45AC3BA24; Sat, 6 Nov 2010 16:54:46 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org X-Greylist: delayed 1189 seconds by postgrey-1.18 at www2.open-std.org; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 16:54:46 CET Received: from ppsw-52.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-52.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.152]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6257EC3BA03 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 2010 16:54:46 +0100 (CET) X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ Received: from hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.54]:59666) by ppsw-52.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.159]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1PEkn8-0003vD-DN (Exim 4.72) (return-path ); Sat, 06 Nov 2010 15:34:54 +0000 Received: from prayer by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1PEkn8-0003wj-4J (Exim 4.67) (return-path ); Sat, 06 Nov 2010 15:34:54 +0000 Received: from [83.67.89.123] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.3); 06 Nov 2010 15:34:54 +0000 Date: 06 Nov 2010 15:34:54 +0000 From: "N.M. Maclaren" To: fortran standards email list for J3 , WG5 Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.4347) (j3.2006) Good news for the Fortran 2003 standard Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20101106122727.B2978C3BA03@www2.open-std.org> References: <20101104112815.A51F3C178E4@www2.open-std.org> <20101106122727.B2978C3BA03@www2.open-std.org> X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk On Nov 6 2010, Toon Moene wrote: > >ECMWF tries to move to a programming paradigm where at least the outer >structure of the model(s) use object oriented design (the reason for >this is complicated, but it stems from the fact that they noticed they >copied -and then slightly modified- far too much code). That seems (semi-)rational. >Obviously, it would be easiest if they could use Fortran for this - >their "toy model" code at the moment has both a C++ variant and a >Fortran variant. Agreed. >Although I haven't looked into it yet, my impression is that the Fortran >variant is rather crippled by the fact that they want to (also) compile >it with Gfortran (See http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Fortran2003Status) for >where Gfortran is, 2003-wise. I rather wonder what they want that isn't there, and suspect that they may be using several extremely tricky and non-portable C++ features without realising just how problematic they are. As usual, the gotcha is that the problems don't show up in toy programs :-( Regards, Nick Maclaren.