There's a great deal of Fortran programming being done today -- the
comp.lang.fortran newsgroup is very active. You're sure to be able to
get some help with the Fortran there. Fortran has been standardized for
a long time, and modern compilers handle legacy code, so it shouldn't be
difficult to recompile the Fortran code with a modern compiler (e.g.,
Compaq, Intel, Lahey) either as an EXE or DLL to be run from the GUI of
your choice. That's exactly what EZNEC does with the Fortran-compiled
NEC code.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Dave wrote:

funny story about that... i just got tasked to dig up the fortran code for a
product my company is just thinking of upgrading to something more modern.
they just finally ran up against windows xp that refuses to run the old dos
extender the fortran was linked with... then it was wrapped with a windows
gui that just ran the old fortran executable in the background. the gui
will probably be more problems to update than the fortran if i can find the
source... it uses visual c++ 1.52 i think, the last of the 16 bit windows
compilers from ms.

fortran is no problem, i have been doing that off and on since 1974 or so.
the problem with this project will be locating all the source. it was done
by various contractors who may not have submitted everything to our library
way back whenever this was first done. i know that at least part of it was
done with lahey tools so that shouldn't be a problem.

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
There's a great deal of Fortran programming being done today -- the
comp.lang.fortran newsgroup is very active. You're sure to be able to
get some help with the Fortran there. Fortran has been standardized for
a long time, and modern compilers handle legacy code, so it shouldn't be
difficult to recompile the Fortran code with a modern compiler (e.g.,
Compaq, Intel, Lahey) either as an EXE or DLL to be run from the GUI of
your choice. That's exactly what EZNEC does with the Fortran-compiled
NEC code.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Dave wrote:

funny story about that... i just got tasked to dig up the fortran code
for a
product my company is just thinking of upgrading to something more
modern.
they just finally ran up against windows xp that refuses to run the old
dos
extender the fortran was linked with... then it was wrapped with a
windows
gui that just ran the old fortran executable in the background. the gui
will probably be more problems to update than the fortran if i can find
the
source... it uses visual c++ 1.52 i think, the last of the 16 bit
windows
compilers from ms.

Yes, .dll libraries of functions/procedures is one answer to a few
problems...
Most everything I write is a .dll... others do the GUI... I construct a
simple command prompt front end to check and debug the code--then ship it
off to others to do the "brain dead" GUI work...
I don't like visual IDE's (Independent Development Environments)... in fact,
I don't like GUI's!!!
I am still ****ed off everyone went from command prompt to GUI!!! It was a
bad idea when apple innovated it--it was still a bad idea when bill stole it
and copied it!!!

However, mp3 players, dvd players, etc running on computer platforms DO have
advantages...

All my utilities/apps I write run from the command line (well, most.) If I
am forced to construct a GUI, then I go directly to the winapi (you don't
need a visual environment to construct windows and graphics!), calling the
windows functions directly from my code, no third party tools (no click and
create visual tools!)

Visual tools are not needed, windows contains all the code in .dll's
already--to construct windows, msgbox'es, etc... why do I want to let
another programmer translate for me--the winapi itself makes more sense!

But, Roy, Fortran is a dead language--even my beloved Pascal, which I hate
to admit, is a dead language... with the power, speed and freedom of "C++"
all other languages are obsolete (even assembly has fallen--just drop to
inline assembly and write in assembly code) unless they run on minimal
platforms (thin clients)...

I would like to say, "This is just my opinion." However, I will stand
beside this as being fact... frown

Regards,
John

John Smith wrote:
. . .
But, Roy, Fortran is a dead language--
. . .

You're very wrong about that. Fortran is in wide daily use, with a great
deal of active programming going on. The main users are academic,
scientific community, and the military. Compilers are modern and
continue to be updated. The language itself undergoes periodic revisions
and updates via a standards committee. It's an evolving, modern, active
language. Drop by comp.lang.fortran or do a little basic web research
and see for yourself.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Well, I disagree...
We often ship a project out of house for coding, we don't care what language
the coder creates in...
the "#define" statement is VERY powerful in "C"... with it, we have created
headers in BASIC, Pascal, Fortran, etc... and defined the WHOLE LANGUAGE to
call C functions in place of those of the native language (there are also
translaters which translate any souce to C source, and these are generally
used in place of the headers, as documentation in C is produced at the same
time)...
Although the programmer is creating in another language, it compiles on a "C
compiler."
Now and then, to keep fluent in Pascal, I use one of these headers, I write
in Pascal--and a C compiler builds the object code...

New Jr. programmers used to come in fluent in other languages other than
"C"--this was all designed to allow them to be productive from day
one--while they came up to speed in C.

Now, C programmers are common, and I don't remember when this was last
used...

Now, most of our code is being done off shore... the world is VERY C savvy!

Regards,
John

Roy Lewallen wrote:

John Smith wrote:

. . .
But, Roy, Fortran is a dead language--

. . .

You're very wrong about that. Fortran is in wide daily use, with a great
deal of active programming going on. The main users are academic,
scientific community, and the military. Compilers are modern and
continue to be updated. The language itself undergoes periodic revisions
and updates via a standards committee. It's an evolving, modern, active
language. Drop by comp.lang.fortran or do a little basic web research
and see for yourself.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

The basic design was well founded, and based upon need and usefullness,
unlike some following languages such as Ada and Pascal.

I wrote my first programs in Fortran II, which ran on a very small 360.

tom
K0TAR

John Smith wrote:


But, Roy, Fortran is a dead language--even my beloved Pascal, which I hate
to admit, is a dead language... with the power, speed and freedom of "C++"
all other languages are obsolete (even assembly has fallen--just drop to
inline assembly and write in assembly code) unless they run on minimal
platforms (thin clients)...

I would like to say, "This is just my opinion." However, I will stand
beside this as being fact... frown

Reports of Fortrans demise are greatly exxagerated. Dead since the late
70's, but still in use.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Well, so is COBOL, still in use!!!
However, mostly, it comes to play only to fix/patch old existing code.
Usually, when the co/corp in question is either unable or unwilling to
expend resources on translating/developing and are able to get by with a
kludge...

Regards,
John

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
| John Smith wrote:
|
|
| But, Roy, Fortran is a dead language--even my beloved Pascal, which I
hate
| to admit, is a dead language... with the power, speed and freedom of
"C++"
| all other languages are obsolete (even assembly has fallen--just drop to
| inline assembly and write in assembly code) unless they run on minimal
| platforms (thin clients)...
|
| I would like to say, "This is just my opinion." However, I will stand
| beside this as being fact... frown
|
| Reports of Fortrans demise are greatly exxagerated. Dead since the late
| 70's, but still in use.
|
| - Mike KB3EIA -

Actually... that isn't totally truthful...
Mathematicians (they controlled the development of Fortran!) are still using
the Apple platform and using Fortran, they are a hardnosed bunch
(dinosaurs?)... but I think this is mostly academic institutions and gov't
(probably even NASA)... they are always behind everyone else...

Regards,
John

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
| Well, so is COBOL, still in use!!!
| However, mostly, it comes to play only to fix/patch old existing code.
| Usually, when the co/corp in question is either unable or unwilling to
| expend resources on translating/developing and are able to get by with a
| kludge...
|
| Regards,
| John
|
| "Mike Coslo" wrote in message
| ...
|| John Smith wrote:
||
||
|| But, Roy, Fortran is a dead language--even my beloved Pascal, which I
| hate
|| to admit, is a dead language... with the power, speed and freedom of
| "C++"
|| all other languages are obsolete (even assembly has fallen--just drop
to
|| inline assembly and write in assembly code) unless they run on minimal
|| platforms (thin clients)...
||
|| I would like to say, "This is just my opinion." However, I will stand
|| beside this as being fact... frown
||
|| Reports of Fortrans demise are greatly exxagerated. Dead since the late
|| 70's, but still in use.
||
|| - Mike KB3EIA -
|
|