From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Fri May 30 23:34:16 2003 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) id h4ULYG68093557 for sc22wg5-domo; Fri, 30 May 2003 23:34:16 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk) X-Authentication-Warning: ptah.dkuug.dk: majordom set sender to owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk using -f Received: from taka.swcp.com (taka.swcp.com [198.59.115.12]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) with ESMTP id h4ULY6Ec093551 for ; Fri, 30 May 2003 23:34:12 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from walt@fortran.com) Received: from fortran.com ([65.121.119.54]) by taka.swcp.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4ULZA2b029577; Fri, 30 May 2003 15:35:11 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <3ED7CE11.2030104@fortran.com> Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 14:33:05 -0700 From: Walt Brainerd User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk, sc22 wg5 Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.2729) Name of the language References: <200305022236.h42MaukZ085984@dkuug.dk> <200305221604.h4MG48S1032762@dkuug.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.3 required=10.0 tests=QUOTE_TWICE_1,REFERENCES,USER_AGENT_MOZILLA_UA version=2.54 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.54 (1.174.2.17-2003-05-11-exp) Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk > > Comments, please. Yes, this has created a lot of discussion. It is fun and (for me) doesn't require intimate knowledge of polymorphism :-). I don't think I agree with Dan that the name is unimportant. I assume we all want F2k^H003 to be successful and we already have a "marketing" problem without having the name be five years out of date by the time (my wild guess) several compilers will be available. Kurt's comments turned on a light for me. I think some are thinking of "2000" as standing for a millenium (Fortran 3M?) or a century, whereas I, at least, am thinking of it as a single year. Maybe this is a part of the whole disagreement. I think Miles explained, however, why that doesn't work. To me, it's kind of like "new and improved" dish soap; it sounds great when it *is* new, but does not wear well. A recent document from the US DOE labs refers to it as "Fortran 200x"; apparently they are a little wiser about referring to an unknown than we have been 8^). -- Walt Brainerd +1-877-355-6640 (voice & fax) The Fortran Company +1-520-760-1397 (outside USA) 6025 N. Wilmot Road walt@fortran.com Tucson, AZ 85750 USA http://www.fortran.com