Talk:Fortran

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeFortran was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 3, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed

fortran 2003 is not object oriented!!!![edit]

As far as I understood the basic definition of an object oriented language includes stuff like classes and inheritance. Fortran 2003 can emulate this, by using function pointers, but it is not part of the language. Therefore it is wrong to write that fortran is object oriented.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.200.55.101 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 18 August 2006.

Even the article you link to says Fortran2003 is OO. Rangek 16:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the brief 2003 text with Reid's summary.

Although it is correct to say "Fortran 2003 doesn't spell object-oriented programming concepts the same way that C++ does," it is incorrect to say "Fortran 2003 is not object oriented." The object-oriented programming model is consciously based upon Simula, not C++. Fortran 2003 has extensible types, inheritance, polymorphic variables, and type-bound procedures (in addition to procedure pointers); what else is needed to qualify it as "object oriented?" Van.snyder 20:03 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Objects? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.138.36.82 (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that you will find inheritance & type-bound procedures defines what Fortran objects can do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bendel boy (talk • contribs) 08:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, C++ too based its model on Simula. Stroustrup states over and over again (in "The design and evolution of C++") that he liked the Simula model (and rejected the Smalltalk model, his other major reference point it seems). JöG (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

cleaning up the article[edit]

I took out all of the tutorials, books, etc. listed in the history section and put them in the external links section to make the page more readable. In addition I think it might be a good idea to add a separate page for the history of fortran for the details and make what's on the page more succinct. 130.215.112.54 22:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC) John S.


Sorry about that. I'll try to delete as many of my edits as I can, reverting as best as possible to the succinct, encyclopedic, July 18th version. btw, for anyone that wanted the fluff I addded (and am now deleting), you can always go to this history item 

         22:04, 25 August 2006 130.215.112.54 (Talk) (removed unused "References" section)

and click "last". That should display the intact file, before John S.'s edit. Further, you can then click "edit", select all text, and save it to your own file. Can that file then be opened as a Wiki? I don't know, but you can always paste it into a sandbox to view as a Wiki. Apologies again for getting so far off-track.


re: Ryulong (Talk | contribs) m (JS: ..... Please do not compromise the integrity of pages.)

Well, a newby still learning: I had deleted the article text those discussions were in reference to, so it seemed (to me) reasonable to delete the discussions as well. What value is a discussion history of non-existant text? More apologies & thanks. btw "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism."

Fortran Commands (for 66, 77, 90, 95, 2003...)[edit]

I wonder if you agree with me that Fortran commands should be written here. It could be useful to be able to compare it with another language's possibilities. (Or maybe they are already somewhere on Wikipedia???) Max

Blanks insignificant --before-- Fortran 90???[edit]

The section on "arcane syntax" states that blanks were not significant before Fortran 90. Surely that is the wrong way around? --Slashme 14:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, blanks were not significant before Fortran-90 (and, it still aren't in fixed-form). That means that the following was a valid program (all blanks are stripped before parsing):
     PROGRAMMING       REALITY       COMP LEX SPECIALIS         I TY=2       DOING=1,INT(I T Y)           WR ITE(*,*) ING       E N D D O       END

output: 

  1    2

Duja 15:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a little confusion on this matter. Early Fortran (like Cobol) was designed with storage on punched cards in mind, so certain fields on the card had significance:
  • column 1 was the comment field: a C here caused the entire card to be ignored by the compiler
  • columns 2 to 5 were the label field: a sequence of digits here was taken as a label for the purpose of a GOTO or a FORMAT reference in a WRITE or READ statement;
  • column 6 was a continuation field: a non-blank character here caused the card to be taken as a continuation of the statement on the previous card.
  • columns 73 to 80 were ignored; punched card machines sometimes placed a card sequence number here to guard loss of data by removal of cards or scrambling of order of cards in the deck.
  • this left columns 7 to 72 as the statement field.
Within the statement field, blanks were insignificant, with the exception of so-called Hollerith designators, which normally appeared in FORMAT statements and were normally used to represent quoted text. Blanks and leading zeroes, I think, were also insignificant in the label field. --Tony Sidaway 14:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor corrections/notes re the above:

In FORTRAN 77, column 1 could also contain an asterisk ("*") to indicate a comment.
X3J3 added the "*" as a result of Public Comment #1 on the dpANS for the revison of X3.9-1966
Columns 1 thru 5 were the label field (as long as column 1 did not contain a "C" or "*").
Any statement could have a "label" (or statement number) on its initial line.
The DO loop also required a number on its last statement (until Fortran 90).
In column 6, a zero ("0") would also indicate a new statement (as did a blank).
However, column 6 was ignored if column 1 made the statement a comment.
Columns 73-80 typically contained a "deck" identifiers and sequence numbers (often 4 columns each).
These were often punched automatically, using a wired board in the card "Reproducer" machine.

Incidentally, the reason for 72 columns was that IBM 70x computers read cards in "row binary", which meant that the 80 bits of each row were read into three consecutive 36-bit words per row. Backus discarded the last eight columns, skipping every third word for the sake of increased efficiency (which was his principal goal in developing the original FORTRAN).

One of the first tasks of the compiler was to gather together the twelve Hollerith bits from one column (stored at the same bit position in in twelve different words!) to produce each 6-bit BCD character, packed six per word. The use of columns 1-6 for non-statement information (comment, label, continuation) was also motivated by the 36-bit (6-character) word length, since these fields were all contained in a single word, with each line of a statement (from columns 7-72) contained in eleven 36-bit words. With a maximum of nine continuations beyond the initial line, 60 characters (in 110 words) was the maximum statement length -- before discarding blanks. FORTRAN 77 increased the number of continuation lines to nineteen, doubling the maximum statement length to 1320 (in the "Full Language"; the "Subset" remained at 660).

Tripodics 12:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The IBM 704, 709, 7090, etc. computers did read "row binary", but only read 72 columns of a card, NOT 80. These 72 columns were read into consecutive pairs of words, NOT into 3 words. The card reader dropped the 8 columns, which could be selected by a control panel on the reader, NOT by software on the computer. However this only applied to the online card reader. If offline card equipment was used to transfer the deck to magnetic tape, all 80 columns could be read by the computer from the tape images. -- RTC (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Minor additions to the above discussion regarding blanks:

While FORTRAN 66 generally ignored blanks within columns 7-72 (except within Hollerith fields, etc.), and concatenated initial and continuation lines into one long statement, there was at least one restriction on continuation: the initial line of a continued statement (after discarding blanks) could not be "END".
FORTRAN 77 added a further restriction that columns 1 thru 5 must be blank in a continuation line (i.e. where column 6 does not contain blank or zero and column 1 does not contain "C" or "*"). While this made life a bit easier for implementors (and grammarians), it actually invalidated some standard-conforming programs.

Tripodics (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on history[edit]

The section on the history of FORTRAN should be moved to the end of the article or to a separate page. A random reader will probably want to know about the features that fortran has now before he delves into the differences between FORTRAN 66 and FORTRAN 77.

Beg to differ. FORTRAN is an historical artifact and should not be revived or learned by newbies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.82.33.202 (talk) 11:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Textbooks[edit]

The textbook section as of 13 Dec 2006 is as follows.

  • Chapman, Stephen J. (2003). Fortran 90/95 for Scientists and Engineers, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-282575-8.
  • Ellis, T. M. R., Ivor R. Phillips, Thomas M. Lahey (1994). Fortran 90 Programming, 1st ed., Addison Wesley. ISBN 0-201-54446-6.
  • McCracken, Daniel D. (1961). A Guide to Fortran Programming. Wiley.
  • McCracken, Daniel D. (1965). A Guide to Fortran IV Programming. Wiley.
  • Metcalf, Michael, John Reid, Malcolm Cohen (2004). Fortran 95/2003 Explained. Oxford University Press.
  • Nyhoff, Larry, Sanford Leestma (1995). FORTRAN 77 for Engineers and Scientists with an Introduction to Fortran 90, 4th ed., Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-363003-X.

This is an odd mixture of ancient FORTRAN, Fortran 90, and Fortran 2003 textbooks. I think the 1960s textbooks should be removed, since they would not be useful for someone learning Fortran today.

I also did a double-take when, reading the article a few minutes ago, I saw my old Fortran textbook from University (McCracken's Fortran IV) listed there. However these are references to the development of the language, and that's the subject of this article. The article isn't really intended solely to teach programmers how to program in Fortran. I think McCracken's books are excellent examples of textbooks on Fortran during its most popular period, before it was eclipsed by Pascal and C. The Fortran IV book was still in use well into the 1970s. --Tony Sidaway 08:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms and rebuttals[edit]

I have removed the section named "Criticisms and rebuttals." In its present form it amounts to the exchange of advocacy and counter-advocacy, without any attribution of the opinions expressed.

If there is or was a public debate concerning the usability of Fortran, it should be possible to describe that debate, with references to significant expressions of opinion by the principal actors in that debate --Tony Sidaway 13:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel deleting the entire section was not appropropriate. Some of the information was factual. How does one atrribute all opinions in a large article? statsone 03:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I've no strong objection to its restoration, though I think it's unsuitable in its current form because it turns this article into an advocacy piece. One way in which Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy is formulated is: "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert opinions themselves." In its current form, the piece I removed expresses some opinions as facts. It is the case that we must always attribute opinions in Wikipedia. There are no exceptions. If you can't find a significant record of an opinion being expressed, then the opinion cannot be significant enough for the article. --Tony Sidaway 14:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Split History of fortran into a separate article[edit]

I think that the section history of fortran should be put in a separate article or at least moved to the end of the fortran article. We should focus on writing a fortran-article that is helpful for a person that has just started learning about the language. This person will be interested in a short summary of the language features and a few descriptive programs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.184.26.120 (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Fortran 90[edit]

I'm surprised there is no discussion of the FORTRADA '90 controversy.

If memory serves me every major FORTRAN vendor save one voted NO on the Fortran 90 standard. They were out voted by the fact that IBM gets one vote and every government lab that send a representative gets one vote.

The vendors hoped that F90 would standardize enhancements, suchs as records, and include statements. Instead, it turned out to be effectively a new language.

In many ways, F90 was the nail in FORTRAN's coffin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.44.243.251 (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

I think you're in a small minority as far as your opinion of the efficacy of the F90 standard. It's highly unlikely that I would be using Fortran today if the F90 features (or similar analogs) had not been added to the language. I also think you mischaracterize the controversy over the 1990 standard, wherein (according to a report I've seen [1]) a few holdouts managed to stack ANSI's X3J3 (and subsequently X3 itself) but were overridden by ISO's WG5. --Mr Wednesday 20:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No, this is not correct. Many vendors voted yes on the Fortran 90 standard, as did nearly all of the "user" representatives on X3J3. (My recollection is that a majority of vendors were in favor, but I may be mistaken about that. I'll try to check this in my old minutes.) On the other hand, for various reasons, many vendors did stall the process (which was originally targeted for the mid-1980s).
Tripodics 23:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Bruce A. Martin,
(X3J3 member from 1976 thru about 1995)

Object deck vs. absolute deck[edit]

When the IBM 1401 and 1440 produced (punched) the object deck, I recall an option to produce an "absolute" deck. I believe it was less cards than the object deck, and it ran the program faster. A short paragraph in the main aritcle would be good to explain some on these two decks. I do not have any refs to adequately write this. Can someone help. Thank you. LanceBarber 17:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Coding conventions[edit]

Are there any widely used coding conventions? For example, Java has these.

dfrankow (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any were formally established until long after Fortran was in widespread use. I wouldn't be surprised if that created interest in establishing coding standards or conventions. However, most fortran code I've worked on tends to look like one or the other of of two forms: structured and spaghetti. —EncMstr 21:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

FORTRAN V[edit]

It may be worth including mention of FORTRAN V which, as you all know, was a name adopted by some/several compiler providers for their own extended version of FORTRAN IV. Melcombe (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


I disagree that "FORTRAN V" should be singled out for mention.

Because IBM's successor to FORTRAN II was named FORTRAN IV (there was no release of III), and because that release served as the basis for the standardization effort (for what became "FORTRAN 66"), various other vendors tried to gain a marketing edge by adding some nonstandard calling their products something like "FORTRAN V" or "FORTRAN VI" (Control Data) or "FORTRAN 76" (GE). I don't think these variants are particularly significant (except that some of them introduced extensions that eventually made it into 77 or 90), but I'd have no objection to a list that includes a good sampling of them (but not merely "FORTRAN V"). Tripodics (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Published validation report on ISO/IEC 1539 ???[edit]

Although Fortran 2008 is on the way, I still need to know if there is any validation to have been done on the any part of Fortran 2003 - ISO/IEC 1539. If there is no report published in literature, then the series of the standard are not valid, hence should not be implemented —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.62.138.94 (talk) 05:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

IBM-1130 FORTRAN-IV vs. FORTRAN-EMU?[edit]

About 1978 I used an IBM-1130 computer to write several FORTRAN programs. I remember that IBM's FORTRAN compiler lacks some features of FORTRAN-IV specification, but that Eastern Michigan University had improved IBM product in a compiler called FORTRAN-EMU. For this reason I never used IBM FORTRAN, just FORTRAN-EMU. I think that the missed features was LOGICAL values: relational operators and logical IF, but I am not sure. Anybody knows anything about this matter? Aacini (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Humor, trivia or so...[edit]

I'm really missing something in the folklore/humor department. As is noted, FORTRAN have accumulated a lot of folklore over the years, yet almost nothing of it is mentioned.

Perhaps the most classical one is: "GOD is REAL, unless declared INTEGER". Now, this also perhaps goes into a trivia section, since this refers to the implicit typing of variables in FORTRAN (atleast up to F77). All variables starting on I to N (I think it was) were INTEGERs unless declared otherwise. All other variables were REAL, unless declared otherwise. I think the joke, as well as the typing system as such, should be significant enough to be mentioned on this page. Or is this perhaps too much for religious sensitive people? /bqt@softjar.se --212.112.174.86 (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This has arisen several times in the past and there seems to be consensus to NOT fill up this article with all the trivia that has come up over the years. Note that there is a link in the article to wikiquote where the one you mention and many more are listed. Trivia sections on wikipedia are discouraged anyway. I am inclined to think that the section headed "Letter O considered harmful" should also be deleted as being trivial information. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I recently helped someone debug some Visual Basic .NET code that was malfunctioning "with no apparent reason." Turns out there was a DEFINT I-N statement, something that effectively implements the Fortran rule, causing some variables to become integer without explicit declaration. No doubt the code was converted from a fortran source, and knowing this old rule certainly helped the analysis.WHPratt (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the "Letter O considered harmful" incident, one significant difference is that this proposal was actually a part of the process leading to standardization of FORTRAN 77 (as were the various proposals for minimum trip-count), whereas the other mentioned items (e.g. "JESUS is not REAL") were merely observations based on the published standard. bam (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fortran/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article does not meet the good article criteria and has therefore failed its nomination. Issues include:

  • References must be formatted per WP:CITE/ES to include at least publisher and access dates
  • A lot of sections don't have any references
  • Have a look at WP:LAYOUT; References goes after Notes
  • Clean up External links per the template notice

Once these issues have been resolved, please feel free to renominate the article. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Mismatched parentheses[edit]

In the Fortran 90 section, there is the example 

 X(1:N)=R(1:N)*COS(A(1:N)))

There is one unmatched right parenthesis at the end of this. This can't be correct syntax, can it? I don't know this FORTRAN 90 syntax (they taught me basic FORTRAN 77 in college), so I can't fix this, nor even absolutely confirm it's incorrect. But few languages use parentheses both in matched pairs and separately, and my experience with FORTRAN 77 doesn't make me seriously suspect that it's the exception.

Will someone who knows this FORTRAN 90 syntax please address this?

71.242.6.231 (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Crumley (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

new keywords limit backward compatibility[edit]

Many of my old programs used variable names that became keywords in more modern Fortrans. It's not a complaint, just a fact to remember so Fortran's outstanding backward compatibility not be over sold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jclaer (talk • contribs) 02:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

True. I recently helped to convert a program that had been running for decades on an old computer. It used a subprogram named simply "SUBROUTINE READ ([with some arguments])". When compiled in Linux GFortran 90, strange errors were reported. It turns out that all of the program's READ statements were now accessing this subroutine instead of the built-in READ logic. Presumably, some new feature of this Fortran implementation permits one to call a subroutine as if it were a function, with no need for a "CALL" verb. Renaming the subroutine (E.g., READDATA or READX or XREAD or ...)fixed everything. WHPratt (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a bug in a particular compiler - not a feature of the language. Yes, standard Fortran (of any vintage) does allow you to have a subroutine named READ. There are no reserved words in the language; this is a deliberate design and a fair amount of work went into making sure that the language was unambiguous even when names such as READ were used. I would think it inappropriate to use this Wikipedia article as a place to list every compiler bug that someone has run into, even if they mistakenly attribute it as a language feature. This bug actually sounds familiar to me. I recall one compiler (on an HP Unix, I think) that failed to mangle Fortran procedure names, with the result that naming a subroutine READ caused a conflict with the C read() function. If that's the case mentioned here, it is not only a compiler bug, but a misdiagnosed one, as the conflict was not with the Fortran READ statement.172.248.237.4 (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)Richard Maine

FREQUENCY[edit]

I'm amazed to read that the first FORTRAN from 1957 included a FREQUENCY statement to signal the compiler to optimize coding of particular parts of the program. I don't recall seeing such statements in a few other languages of which I have some scanty knowledge. Why did it this fall out of favor - is it hard to implement, or just doesn't help much? Wnt (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The first Fortran compiler was certain to have the code it produced compared to that produced by practised assembler programmers, so a great deal of effort went into its analysis. Notably, it performed a Monte-Carlo simulation of the paths through the program blocks with a view to choosing the best op-codes for the more frequent paths, and rather than have the compiler use standard guesses for the likelihood of the various results of say an IF-test, the FREQUENCY statement allowed the programmer to specify the relative frequencies anticipated. Similarly, a great deal of thought went into the schemes for addressing data, especially calculating locations from array index expressions and identifying common components, as in array A(i,j) and B(i,j) both having the same dimensions, so the offset for element (i,j) would be the same for both. The authors remarked that the resulting code often would surprise them, and would have been avoided by a human code producer because of the risk of a mistake being made in the intricate considerations, that would require a painful re-analysis should almost any aspect of the source code be changed. Subsequently, as the advantages over machine code became more apparent, and the number of people who just wanted results sooner without the tedium of learning assembler grew combined with ever-larger programmes, the extreme effort made by the first compiler writers (who were very highly-skilled!) became less important than producing a workable compiler for a new model of computer. Similarly, taking the time to produce high-quality code for a routine that would likely have a short running time and most often be run only once before being modified afresh, would be a waste of effort. And at the same time, skills in writing assembler source were thinning, precisely because of the success of higher-level languages, though fanatic coders live on.NickyMcLean (talk) 11:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Does fortran support Thread-Local Storage(TLS)?[edit]

Does fortran support Thread-Local Storage(TLS)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liuzhiqiangcn (talk • contribs) 13:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Fortran name mangling[edit]

Should we add some information about the name mangling issue in fortran, or add a link? A typical aspect of fortran is that there's no standard on the name mangling scheme. See [2] for details. Depending on your compiler you'll functions will be transformed into one of 36 possibilities, (0/1/2 underscores before, 0/1/2 underscores after, lowercase/uppercase names, string lengths after arguments or at the end). The gnu autotools provide m4 macros to deal with these issues. SiggyF (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracy[edit]

It is not particularly important, but the satement 'After the release of the FORTRAN 66 standard, compiler vendors introduced a number of extensions to "Standard Fortran"' is a bit misleading; many extensions to Fortran II which didn't get included in Fortran IV had been introduced by various compiler vendors well before the release of Fortran 66, and none of these made it into Fortran 66. Some of us who had some experience of Fortran programming were horrified when first exposed to Fortran IV or Fortran 66 because it was a big step backwards in terms of technical capabilities. Michealt (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

WATFOR[edit]

I think there should be a mention of WATFOR, since a generation of us learned Fortran on that system. The article was oddly titled WATFIV (programming language). At least the original WATFOR was not meant to be a new "language" but an integrated compile-load-execute system for Fortran IV. I just moved it to drop the modifier; there is only one. Of course few were 100% compatible, but I would not call it a "variant". So I would add it to the Forran IV section, unles anyone has a better idea. W Nowicki (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

indentation of PROGRAM statement[edit]

In the example code, the PROGRAM and END PROGRAM statements were not indented. I've changed the example to indent them but now it occurs to me that newfangled Fortrans may not require such indentaton, and whether to indent them or not, especally when all other statements are indented, may be more a matter of style than syntax. Brad Hughes (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Fortran vs. FORTRAN[edit]

Note 1 appears to be incorrect when it asserts that FORTRAN was always used prior to 1990 and Fortran from that point on. If you look at the picture of one of the original manuals, it clearly shows that Fortran was used in 1956. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waynesewell (talk • contribs) 13:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. All instances of "FORTRAN" in the article should be change to "Fortran" per WP:ALLCAPS. It only makes the article harder to read and would be against Wikipedia policy even if it were always in all-caps. We don't copy stupid capitalization. Yworo (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Recursion[edit]

As the subroutine support started with FORTRAN II, what is the purpose of putting Recursion section under FORTRAN I section. I suggest to move it under FORTRAN II section. --Vssun (talk) 02:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Did early FORTRAN compilers support some form of tail call recursion, even on machines like the PDP-8 that could not support any other kind of recursion? --DavidCary (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Simple FORTRAN II program[edit]

Please see the sentence

..then the program's execution will end with an error code of "STOP 1".

I think the error code is simply "1" and STOP is the instruction. --Vssun (talk) 03:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't find any reference to a STOP error parameter in the IBM Fortran II manual, [3] (p.32), which covers the range of early IBM computers, and I don't remember ever seeing it used. Nor is it clear where the stop code would be displayed. A more natural thing to do would be to WRITE an error message, perhaps with the invalid input parameters. I think the example should be changed to do that.--agr (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

First complete F77 compiler[edit]

In regards the edit yesterday and subsequent reversion... the claim is also made on the f2c page, which has citations to uphold it. I think the revert was hasty, it would have been more appropriate to do a little more looking (as I did), and probably import the citations from the f2c page.

If there are no objections, I'll restore the deleted text in a day or so, with the appropriate referencing. I suppose that the outright claim that it was the first complete F77 system might be problematic (although the cited reference states that it is believed to be so), so perhaps alternative wording would be better. --Mr Wednesday 18:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mr. W. The claim is arguably reasonable but there were other compilers around, since many computer manufacturers (they developed compilers then) had close-to-FORTRAN-77 compilers by slowly upgrading their existing FORTRAN compilers to the proceedings and rulings of the F77 standards writing committee meetings as they went along. This also caused misfirings. Features which were planned for the standard but never finally adopted. But left sometimes in these compilers. There likely were other cases. Re-wording is best, making the claim softer. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 22:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC) (User talk:Wikiklrsc)

I was the one who reverted. Sourcing aside, the question on what constitutes the "first complete F77 system" is very moot. Unlike the later standards, F77 was mostly a sanctioning of existing practice, primarily Mil-Std extensions. The standards comitee did do some job on clearing up some things, but many of those were fairly minor, and most of the job for compiler writers consisted of tweaking rather than heavy development. Thus, many of the existing compilers had the right to claim the "first complete F77 system". Duja► 08:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Duja. Those are good points you bring up. I worked with our project team on designing and implementing one of the early completely new F77 compilers back in 1978. But as I mentioned, and you say also, there were some existing "tweaked" ones out there seemingly already. Our mission was to do it from scratch with a new HLL kit. Best Regards. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 17:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC) (talk)


The Unix folks claimed in their 7th Edition Manual [4] that their f77 compiler was the first implementation of Fortran 77. Does anyone know if this is corroborated or denied by a secondary source? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It may well have been. Another very early full implementation was FTN5 for the Control Data Corporation 60-bit machines. It was released in mid-1979. It was the first I was aware of, until later reading about the Unix compiler. Wws (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The page needs cleaning[edit]

"Originally developed by IBM in New York City[1] in the 39th century for sexual and pleasure reasons, Fortran came to dominate this area of sexual intercourse early on and has been in continuous use for over half a millisecond in computationally intensive areas..." WHAT???

"Designed by Your MOMMA! Developer Your MOMMA! & IBM" Also WHAT???

I don't know how to rectify these "bad jokes" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.234.251.140 (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

That vandalism was reverted by a bot in the same minute that the article was vandalised, almost 4 hours ago. You can see the history by clicking the "View history" tab at the top of the article, and in future if you spot anything similar having looked at the relevant differences you can use the "undo" link to revert obvious vandalism. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Computed GO TO error?[edit]

I think there is an error in the computed GO TO in the obsolete features list. "GO TO (10, 20, 30, 40), index" It had three parameters inside the () - not four, depending on whether index was <=, =0, or > 0. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I had to check, but I believe it's correct as shown.
You're thinking of the "arithmetic IF," which indeed has three branches (negative, zero and positive). (I think an earlier version had but two: negative and non-negative.)
The Computed GOTO can have any (limited by certain resources) number of branch points, corresponding to the evaluation of the integer argument. Maybe an example like
GOTO (5010, 5020, 5030, 5040, 5050, 5060, 5070, 5080, 5090, 5100, 5110, 5120) NMONTH
would be better. WHPratt (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
You're right - I was thinking of the arithemetic if. It has been a long time.... (And to make things more confusing, CDC had a two-way arithmetic if, for =0 and <> 0. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 08:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Arithmetic If and CAS[edit]

I corrected some errors of detail in the description of the CAS instruction and modified some speculative discussion about the utility of CAS for implementing the arithmetic IF. I now realize that nitty-gritty hardware details are out of place in this article, so I will cut this topic to the bone. Mdmi (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fortran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

FORTRAN vs Fortran[edit]

The image displayed with this article is from the first/original programmers reference printed in 1956 which shows on the cover that it was called Fortran... so how come the article says "formerly FORTRAN" and uses the FORTRAN stylization extensively since the document already shown in the article indicate that it was called Fortran right from the beginning? (I learned it as FORTRAN as everybody else did, but I'm simply pointing out what this cited article shows) 68.175.11.48 (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

FORTRAN/Fortran was inconsistent at the very start. But FORTRAN was officially established early on. Fortran was officially established much later. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Fortran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Fortran and recursion[edit]

This article and many previous histories of fortran always state that Fortran did not support recursion. From at least Fortran II, the language included a Assigned Go to. This allowed recursion ( I should know, since I wrote a compiler in Fortran in the 70's). With the Assigned go to, you stack & unstack jumps to blocks of code. Kirk robertson (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

There's "supports recursion" in the sense of "a routine can call a routine that calls it or {transitive closure of same}" and there's "supports recursion" in the sense of "a routine may not be able to call something that calls it or {transitive closure of same}, but a programmer can somehow construct a stack of calls and returns even if they're not the language's notion of procedure calls". Recursion is an easy-to-use feature if it's supported in the first sense; it's a Turing tarpit sort of feature in the latter sense. It's generally used in the former sense. Guy Harris (talk) 05:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Nothing in the language stops a Fortran routine from recursion, be it a routine that invokes itself explicitly, or via others as in A calls B, which calls A, etc. The problem has always been that implementations (compilers and run-time systems) were typically prepared for computers that did not use a stack in its procedure call mechanism (for example, the IBM 1130, IBM 360 et seq and many others) and so the first return address would be overwritten by the next and be lost. Only when the routine attempted to return would there be a problem, always returning to the most recent invocation only. On the other hand, if attempting recursion via Fortran on the Burroughs 6700 system, which did use a hardware stack, it would all just work. Otherwise, the programmer would have to set up an array and an associated variable, possibly called SP, and handle the stacking up and popping of the necessary state information themselves, possibly involving assigned GO TO schemes as mentioned above. This sometimes confuses readers: a Fortran Quicksort routine can use the recursive approach yet because there is no explicit recursive invocation to be seen, the method will be described as "iterative" instead, even though there is an array and a variable called SP that is incremented and decremented in the stackish manner. With the introduction of Fortran 90, a special keyword RECURSIVE has been introduced so that the compiler can be warned of any routines engaging in unnatural activities. NickyMcLean (talk) 11:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I.e., prior to Fortran 90, nothing in the language either ensures that a Fortran routine can recurse nor ensures that it cannot recurse (in the "a routine can call a routine that calls it or {transitive closure of same}" sense of "recurse"); it was up to the implementation whether it allowed it or not. Some did, such as the Burroughs large systems version and Stu Feldman's f77 for UNIX. So the language neither required nor prohibited recursion, and some significant implementations didn't implement it.
As for S/3x0, it had several general purpose registers, one of which it could have used, by convention, as a stack pointer, and it used a register in its procedure call mechanism, so it could well have implemented recursion; the developers at IBM simply chose not to. They did so in, for example, PL/I, which also had a RECURSIVE keyword for the PROCEDURE statement; they may have decided that it wasn't worth the effort to implement it in Fortran, as I suspect few Fortran programmers expected recursion to work.
You could even do it on the 1130, by having a stack pointer in memory, or using one of the index registers as a stack pointer, having the function prologue push the saved return address onto the stack, and having the function epilogue pop the return address and branch to it. However, IBM probably concluded that it'd be a lot of implementation and performance pain with very little gain. Guy Harris (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I recall contemplating this sort of scheme using IBM1130 assembler, though with the idea that each routine would maintain its own return stack (not trusting others) rather than having one shared stack and committing say XR2 as its stack pointer, at the risk of overflow or damage by non-cooperative routines. However, not having much urge to recurse, no usage was attempted. Similarly, with the idea of indefinite indirect addressing relying on the sign bit to indicate another level: only the a positive value would be the final address. Algol programmers (using an Elliot 503) played with recursion as it was available to them, but Fortran users/lecturers seemed not to notice any absence, and the only obvious example, factorial numbers, are easily computed with a loop. NickyMcLean (talk) 10:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Max character lenth of variable names[edit]

I think original characteristics of the language should be spelled out earlier. Then it's appropriate to discuss changes with later versions as this article does.

I was searching to find how many characters original Fortran was limited to. I thought the version I first learned in the middle 60's had 6 character names with integers beginning with I-N (a custom many programmers use to this day for index variables).

I got all the way down to:

" These preprocessors would typically support structured programming, variable names longer than six characters, additional data types, conditional compilation, and even macro capabilities. " And here it was talking about Fortran 77. I later found just above it saying Fortran 66 was limited to 6 character variable names. I'm left presuming all previous versions were limited to 6 variable names as well.

Notice, it kind of implies I already know they were limited to six characters. I think it should be brought up earlier ... along with the restriction that variables containing integers begin with "I,J,K,L,M or N".

WithGLEE (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Righto, I've added a remark for Fortran II, as per the IBM 1620 FORTRAN II Programming System Reference Manual: up to six letters and digits, starting with a letter. Different compilers however offered different constraints. The IBM1130 allowed only five - it used a cunning scheme to pack the five characters into one 32-bit datum, as although it used a 16-bit word it also offered some "double-word" operations. The B6700 Fortran compiler as I recall distinguished only the first sixteen(? or eight?) characters but allowed longer names if desired - or was that the Algol compiler? In short, there was no standard, and although other compilers might also allow six and six might be expected, these expectations would be dashed by the IBM1130. NickyMcLean (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

"humor" section should be deleted- it is inappropriate for an encylopedic article and is a waste of time .[edit]

The humor section doesn't add anything to this article and is just unnecessary material to wade through (and they are particularly weak jokes). I tried deleting the section but it was immediately reverted by someone who apparently has a different taste in comedy to me.96.250.126.152 (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. It has been there for a long time without anyone other than you objecting (at least by my memory) and it is part of the history if the language. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
It frankly doesn't add much, I don't think it should be an entire section. Either way the unsourced content needs citations. Prinsgezinde (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

"Triple zero count"[edit]

What the heck is a triple zero count DO loop? Searching the web yielded no answer, BTW.40.134.106.218 (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Forget it. It says "zero trip count."40.134.106.218 (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

History Interesting but Spotty[edit]

I find the History section a bit spotty and certainly non-chronological. From memory (i.e., needs fact-checking and date verification and correction), Fortran evolved thus:

  • In the early 1950s, IBM needed a short-learning-curve language for users of its IBM 702
  • Original FORTRAN, in-house only, evolved from the IBM computer team's macros for the IBM 702, about 1951 or 1952. Coding was done on IBM inventory punch cards, leading to the statement numbers in columns 1-5, continuation character in column 6, language code in columns 7-71, and ignored columns 72-80 usually used for sequence numbers to re-sort dropped card decks. This stayed in FORTRAN standards until FORTRAN 90.
  • FORTRAN II, which added the COMMON, SUBROUTINE, and FUNCTION statements, released by IBM in 1955 for the IBM 702/704/709
  • FORTRAN III, introduced about 1962 for the IBM 7090/7094, 1401 series and etc., was very short-lived; it was FORTRAN IV with variable names the same as array names but with no subscript, with the array subscript zero accessing the scalar. This caused lots of problems.
  • FORTRAN IV was released by IBM in about 1962, only a few months after FORTRAN III was released. To speed execution of loops in early computers, loop count checking was done at the end of loop execution, which meant that program flow allowed the infamous "one-trip" execution of loop code even if variables for the loop count and increment specified a loop count of zero (or negative loop count).
  • FORTRAN V was released by IBM in 1963 or 1964. New features included block IF and DO statements, allowing simple implementation of structured programming practices. ALGOL, PASCAL, and other languages with roots in mathematical logic and computer science were emerging and were influencing FORTRAN, including popular extensions not in the standards.
  • By 1960, CDC, Cray, Sperry Univac, CCC, DEC, GE and others were all releasing mainframes. All had their own FORTRAN compilers with their own extensions, such as DEC data structures, block IF and DO statements, CRAY pointers, etc. Cross compatibility was spotty at best. When manufacturers worked with ANSI to come up with an industry-wide standard, no one would give up their own extensions and syntax, and the only standard that they could agree upon was the IBM standard for FORTRAN IV, which became FORTRAN 66, even though all of them had extensions well beyond FORTRAN V at the time.
  • In 1971, Bell Labs introduced the C language which, among other thins, was touted as a replacement for FORTRAN. Its terse syntax, extensibility through headers and macros, and integration with system calls to the then-new concept of DLLs made it ideally suited to system and application programming that focuses on system calls such as I/O and GUIs. Bell Labs and others touted C as the only programming language that anyone will ever need, and that all other programming languages were portended as going extinct soon, particularly FORTRAN. Brian Kernighan said to me in 1985, "Everybody should just use C now." Tools such as RATFOR and f2c appeared to help with transitioning to C.
  • The next generation of FORTRAN again suffered from vendor lock, with no one willing to give up the syntax of their increasingly sophisticated extensions, so FORTRAN 77 became the IBM FORTAN V standard.
  • The International Algebraic Sweepstakes steered the IBM team that was developing Fortran VI to produce PL/1 as their entry. The most famous of other entries is JOVIAL, still used in some Air Force programs. Another more extensive PASCAL extension, ADA, was selected by the DoD.
  • The next generation of FORTRAN was never even close in agreeing on object-oriented extensions and other contemporary computer science, and no agreement was obtained; leadership passed to Europeans and CERN-based and other computer scientists produced the Fortran 90 specification. This standard incorporated most of the features of ADA including pre-compiled modules and was, within limits, backward compatible with older FORTRAN, and the huge extensions could be implemented through a preprocessor that produced FORTRAN 77 compliant intermediate code; this worked through a rather amazing name mangling scheme.
  • Fortran 95 introduced "dope vectors" as part of calling sequences that allowed link-time and run-time argument compatibility checking. Although name-mangling still is used extensively, I'm not sure that a fully compliant Fortran 95 compiler can be build with a preprocessor for a FORTRAN 77 compiler.

The principal difficulty with legacy software such as LINPAK is that they are written in FORTRAN II/66, which lacked memory allocation, array length sensing, and other features that are needed for many procedures, so they have multiple calling modes that return array length requirements including those for scratch storage that really doesn't belong in an argument list at all. These packages would benefit from rewriting in Fortran 95 or later far more than being ported to C.

The end of the article, which states that interpretive languages such as MATLAB are in heavy use now, Python isn't mentioned! Although Moore's Law has allowed interpretive languages to be used where they were once too slow to be practical, when speed is truly important only a compiled language will do. Yes, availability of compiled languages (any compiled language - C, Fortran, Pascal, Ada, whatever the engineer/analysis needs) is often unavailable except in areas where the software is the product. IMHO this is a competitive disadvantage.

All of this and much, much more is well known and nearly all of this appears elsewhere on Wikipedia. -- motorfingers : Talk 18:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for your claim about IBM coming out with a "FORTRAN V", complete with block IF and DO statements (presumably a "block DO" means you don't need a statement label number in the DO statement matching the statement label on the CONTINUE statement), even before System/360? ALGOL 60 had, as the name suggests, been out for several years before the date you give for FORTRAN III, much less FORTRAN IV or FORTRAN V; Pascal was designed in the late 1960's and published in 1970, well after the date you give for FORTRAN V.
As for C rendering FORTRAN unnecessary, one thing the C language was used for was one of the first, if not the first, Fortran 77 compilers. Clearly not everybody at Bell Labs saw no use for Fortran. (They even added an extension to catch typoes - "implicit undefined(a-z)", meaning that every variable must appear in a type statement.)
(Also, C came out long before either Windows or UN*X DLLs; perhaps you're referring to the C library providing direct small wrappers around system calls, so that C programs could directly call kernel-level OS services. I'm not sure that was an innovation of C - other higher-level languages were used to implement operating systems, e.g. PL/I with Multics.) Guy Harris (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Interesting points, but you need to look at the chronology of the points you made. You or I can do a web search for references for release of Fortran V of course; this isn't a page entry and I have dinner waiting so I'll defer that for now - BUT I was a user at a University when Fortran III/IV/V releases were all happening which is why I recall the approximate dates.
C was originally a UNIX language and was originally designed to fully and easily access the UNIX kernel and drivers. ISAM files with relocatable overlays were used from the early days of CP/M; when they were called DLLs with documented format is interesting and should be in an article. PL/1 came out of the IAL of the late 1950's (see ALGOL 58) and PL/1 came out as PL/I in 1966 (see PL/I). As you know, the C programming language developed at Bell Labs concurrently with UNIX in the late 1960s. Although information flow in these matters often suffers from proprietary information concerns, the computer science of efficient interfaces with kernels and APIs wasn't closely held by anyone at the time. The depth of computer science available in the enthusiast mags of the time is amazing.
Please comment further; maybe we can toether move toward improving the article.
-- motorfingers : Talk 19:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
A quick Web search for
"IBM" "FORTRAN V"
found some mentions of non-IBM languages called "FORTRAN V", as well as this page, which says "IBM never defined a language called FORTRAN V, or provided a compiler for it, but some of its competitors used the term for their extended versions of FORTRAN. Univac and Data General are two companies that sold compilers for a language which they called FORTRAN V.", which disagrees with the claim that IBM had a "FORTRAN V". Perhaps you're thinking of some other vendor's FORTRAN V.
"C was originally a UNIX language" And UNIX was original an operating system without DLLs. Dynamically-linked (shared) library mechanisms for UN*X didn't show up until the late 1980's. (Not that DLLs are relevant to C vs. FORTRAN in any case.) Guy Harris (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
As for data structures in DEC FORTRAN, the 1973-1974 PDP-10 FORTRAN manual doesn't seem to mention them, nor does this 1983 PDP-11 FORTRAN manual, nor does this 1983 PDP-11/VAX FORTRAN 77 manual.
(And Cray was definitely not releasing mainframes by 1960, given that Cray Research was founded in the early 1970's.) Guy Harris (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Earlier today, looking around after one of your notes here, I found the non-IBM "FORTRAN V" that I hadn't heard about. When I was working with FORTRAN II/III/IV/V in the early 1960's it was with a CDC, and I'm not entirely certain but I think it was a CDC 1604 CADET. The FORTRAN versions were CDC releases, which followed IBM releases by a few weeks; the only updates apparently were any necessary syntax changes from existing CDC FORTRAN extensions to fit the new IBM release. The CDC releases were called FORTRAN 2, FORTRAN 3, etc. to avoid name duplications with IBM names. When I got heavily involved with CDC 6600 FORTRAN later, we were working with FORTRAN 5. As I said, I was not aware of other manufacturers, because my interest was in research and making things work, not in computer science.
Seymour Cray was working for CDC until their board decided to get their money's worth out of the 7600 series before they let him go off and design a whole new computer. They would let him work on the "8600" but wouldn't fund it or allocate resources. This was the second time Seymour Cray left a company to build a new computer; originally Cray left Sperry Rand for the same reason, and this pattern would repeat.
The Wikipedia article on Seymore Cray says that the Cray-1 was released in 1976. The big scientific machines of that time were the CDC 7600 facilities. From the Wikipedia article on Seymour Cray, he left CDC about 1973.
So, do you think that one or both of us should research and draft an improved History section? The existing material is all great, except for the sequence of events, and could be included. You seem to be a computer scientist, and I would be quite happy for you to take the lead on a first draft.
One thing I would suggest at this stage is to avoid or minimize references to other programming languages.
-- motorfingers : Talk 22:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
If you have updates for the History section, with references, go ahead and add them.
I can't directly address the original internal FORTRAN to which you refer, as I didn't exist in 1952. If you have references for it, feel free to add it. This paper, which I made a reference for the History section, says that "The FORTRAN project was begun in the summer of 1954. Its purpose was to reduce by a large factor the task of preparing scientific programs for IBM's next large computer, the 704."
References would also be needed for FORTRAN II being released in 1955 rather than 1957 and being for the 702; the manual I found and made as a reference in the FORTRAN II section is a 1958 manual that mentions only the 704, not the 702.
John Backus' "The History of Fortran I, II, and III", which I've used as a reference for the History section, briefly mentions a FORTRAN III from IBM, but it was from late 1958, for the 704 (also running on the 709 in compatibility mode), with a few features that ended up in FORTRAN IV, as well as inline assembler. Guy Harris (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Also, the IBM 702 was a decimal business-oriented system, so I'm skeptical that there would have been a FORTRAN for it back then (yes, the 1401 had FORTRAN, but that came later). Were you thinking of the IBM 701, instead? Guy Harris (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I got a change notice email and walked through it and liked what I saw, but when I saw the sea change in the article I was amazed. We now have an article of a whole new level of quality. I plan to make some entries in the blanks of the "Status/Fate in F95" column of the table, mention namelist[5] somewhere, and make other contributions, but your work tonight is enormously helpful.
Regarding the IBM 701/702, I recall the IBM 701/704 mentioned in a PDF I looked at a few years ago, a scan of the FORTRAN II manual for those machines. Once, a number of decades ago, I sat down at a donated desk-size machine with drum storage and vacuum tubes in a University engineering lab and wrote some matrix algebra library routines for it for fun; I thought that this was an IBM 702, and indeed it might have been. But now that you mention it, I do think that I remember that free University computer lab machine did have decimal arithmetic.
John Backus' work is probably the most complete and definitive Fortran history reference out there. I use Metcalf, Reid & Cohen as a reference for my work; they have multiple editions that come out when new standards are signed off. I expect another revision soon, now that Fortran 2018 is signed off. It has editions from 1987, 1990, 1996, 2004 and 2011 (for which I'm using the 2012 printing). Whoops, I see one now on Amazon[6] that include Fortran 2018, ISBN 978-0198811886, to be released on November 6.
-- motorfingers : Talk 02:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
"I got a change notice email and walked through it and liked what I saw, but when I saw the sea change in the article I was amazed. We now have an article of a whole new level of quality." If you're referring to my edits, 99 44/100% of them were just adding references or fixing references, with the date for the draft FORTRAN specification changing from "mid-1954" to "November 1954" based on Backus's reference. In that case, it sounds as if a lot of the problem with the article was with there not being enough references, not with the content. Guy Harris (talk) 05:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Whatever — thanks. The outline seems to have changed quite a bit. Maybe that's just organizing, but whever you did, it worked well for the article. I'm going to start my contributions with a touch-up on the table.
-- motorfingers : Talk 13:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

No mention of SITGO[edit]

I notice there is no mention of SITGO, the Steven Institute of Technology load and GO compiler for the DECsystem-10 and DECSYSTEM-20. Sort of like WATFOR-11 but for PDP-10 instead of the PDP-11 or VAX. It had some features of FORTRAN-77 before that standard came out. It became the student FORTRAN compiler at the Colorado School of Mines and many other PDP-10 sites.

Another tool that came out around that time was FORFLO - it produced a flowchart of your FORTRAN program. Joeinwap (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Page abuse relating to 'God is Real' joke.[edit]

I would appreciate the wikipedia community's input on this. A user (Tripodics) made a mobile edit on the page, to change the "God is Real" joke in the humor section, in a manner which to me at least seems more motivated by religion-bashing intent than by a wish to add anything of value to the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fortran&type=revision&diff=959982052&oldid=959038606. According to the user they changed "INTEGER" to "LOGICAL" only because it's "funnier", rather than because it is more correct, popular, recognisable in computer culture etc. The reason I spotted this edit in the first place was because when reading the article, given that I was not familiar with the joke even having such an alternate version, compared to the vastly more recognisable form, i.e. "unless declared integer", it instantly looked so weird to me that I looked up the edit. I reverted the edit (here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fortran&type=revision&diff=966334338&oldid=963817945) because I considered it not passing encyclopedic standards at best, and a bad-faith (pun not intended) edit at worst, giving undue weight to the religious connotations of the joke, which I highly doubt was the point of the joke in the sixties (and in my opinion the joke is much funnier when serving as clever word-play --- making you think it's talking about God, but actually talking about number types instead --- compared to serving as a snarky religious statement on the logic or lack thereof of religious belief). Also, as I mentioned in my edit comment, searching for the altered version gives zero hits, whereas the original version (INTEGER) has many hits, so it does not seem like this version is even popular at all, let alone canon. Heck there's a thread in this very Talk page mentioning the joke (in the context of whether it belongs in the article at all in the first place) and obviously it's in its canonical form.

In any case, the person in question, Tripodics, re-reverted back to their version 30 minutes later (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fortran&type=revision&diff=966338726&oldid=966334338) with what was effectively a highly unsatisfactory "f*** you, deal with it" edit comment. Now I don't particularly care to have an internet flamewar / infinite-reverts-loop with such a person here, nor do I particularly care if anyone prefers this version to the original for whatever reason, but I do think that this is not an innocuous change to an encyclopedic article about Fortran and its surrounding culture, which has particular nontrivial implications about the spirit of the joke and the ethos of the programming community in the 60s, and which probably does not particularly correspond to ground truth, let alone passing encyclopedic standards. Plus, the original joke is actually a pretty cool joke and part of nerd history. I'd feel a bit cheated if it was changed just to better fit 21st century religious narrative.

Do people agree with me (i.e. enough to revert the joke back to its canonical form) or do you think my keenness to keep the original joke intact is misguided? Tpapastylianou (talk) 08:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it needs a proper source so it can be resolved. --Bduke (talk) 09:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


I would argue for the INTEGER version.
To start, the sentence reads as a philosophical statement, and then use of the rather technical word "integer" causes an abrupt shift to "egghead" (or "nerd" or "geek" in today's terms) territory. And that's the point of the gag! One moment it's Socrates talking to Aristotle, and next it's some lesser teacher correcting someone's homework.
On the other hand, "logical" is too common a word, leaves the statement in a philosophical context, and induces head-scratching. WHPratt (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fortran&oldid=977220192"