Home     |     .Net Programming    |     cSharp Home    |     Sql Server Home    |     Javascript / Client Side Development     |     Ajax Programming

Ruby on Rails Development     |     Perl Programming     |     C Programming Language     |     C++ Programming     |     IT Jobs

Python Programming Language     |     Laptop Suggestions?    |     TCL Scripting     |     Fortran Programming     |     Scheme Programming Language


 
 
Cervo Technologies
The Right Source to Outsource

MS Dynamics CRM 3.0

Fortran Programming Language

Intel Fortran compiler version 10 released


Version 10 of the Intel compiler for Windows and Linux has been
released. The Windows version is now stand-alone. It is a "Self-
contained product includ[ing] Microsoft Visual Studio 2005 Premier
Partner Edition"
http://www.intel.com/cd/software/products/asmo-na/eng/compilers/27883...
. There a few Fortran 2003 features, such as C interoperability, but
it is far from a full F2003 compiler. I don't work for Intel.

Beliavsky wrote:
> There a few Fortran 2003 features, such as C interoperability, but
> it is far from a full F2003 compiler. I don't work for Intel.

Does anyone have a fair idea about which of the various Fortran
compilers around are now "closest" (however that is to be understood) to
having implemented the full F2003 standard?

Just curious ... :-)

--
     -+-Ben-+-

On Jun 7, 2:43 pm, Ben Hetland <ben.a.hetl@sintef.no> wrote:

> Beliavsky wrote:
> > There a few Fortran 2003 features, such as C interoperability, but
> > it is far from a full F2003 compiler. I don't work for Intel.

> Does anyone have a fair idea about which of the various Fortran
> compilers around are now "closest" (however that is to be understood) to
> having implemented the full F2003 standard?

I'd guess NAG. Quoting the June 6, 2007 issue of NAGNews (a free email
newsletter from NAG),

"A beta version of NAGWare f95 Release 5.1 has been used in the
preparation of a new book. Author Stephen J. Chapman says "NAG is way
ahead of other PC Fortran vendors in implementing the object-oriented
features of Fortran 2003 and its tool has been invaluable in preparing
the new materials in this book."  Fortran 95/2003 for Scientists and
Engineers, 3rd ed. is published by McGraw-Hill, ISBN
978-0-07-319157-7.

Beliavsky <beliav@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jun 7, 2:43 pm, Ben Hetland <ben.a.hetl@sintef.no> wrote:
> > Beliavsky wrote:
> > > There a few Fortran 2003 features, such as C interoperability, but
> > > it is far from a full F2003 compiler. I don't work for Intel.

> > Does anyone have a fair idea about which of the various Fortran
> > compilers around are now "closest" (however that is to be understood) to
> > having implemented the full F2003 standard?

> I'd guess NAG. Quoting the June 6, 2007 issue of NAGNews (a free email
> newsletter from NAG),

NAG was to my knowledge the first out of the gate with several of the
basic features, but it seems to me that they have stalled quite a bit
for several years. Their version 5.0 seemed an impressive start. But
then I kept waiting for more. I think I recall it was something like a
year and a half or so between 5.0 and 5.1 and I was really dissappointed
at the small amount of progress; some, but it was sure small compared to
the major stuff in 5.0. It is pure speculation, but I note the
correlation between the slowdown and Malcolm being over in Japan for a
few years. (He's also been editor of the standard the last few years
after I stopped, and I know that's a big job). I'm suspicious that he
has had to spend more of his attention on other things... and Malcolm's
darned good - hard to adequately substitute for.

Ths single thing that I miss most in NAG is allocatable scalars. That is
a pretty big limitation on the object oriented stuff, as anything
polymorphic has to be either allocatable or pointer. You can, of course,
always use pointers, but that has a host of the usual problems, which
pretty much destroy many of the advantages of the object oriented stuff
in my view. Polymorphic things mostly "want" to be allocatable. And, of
course, you can make everything arrays, but that's not exactly viable
for real work or anything other than demonstrating basic principles, in
my view.

Plus, with the allocatable scalars, you get variable-length strings done
"right", or any way a whole lot better.

I haven't tried it, not having a Cray handy here at home :-), but the
feature table in the latest Fortran Forum makes Cray look pretty much in
front at the moment.

--
Richard Maine                    | Good judgement comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain

Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | Stumble it | Powered by Megasolutions Inc