From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] software quality and popularity Message-ID: <20010522223415.A640@localhostnl.demon.nl> References: <20010426234625.1EBA119A40@mail.cse.psu.edu> <200105221928.MAA02159@ohio.river.org> <00f701c0e2fb$449e2f20$e8b7c6d4@SOMA> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <00f701c0e2fb$449e2f20$e8b7c6d4@SOMA>; from boyd@planete.net on Tue, May 22, 2001 at 10:10:37PM +0200 From: William Staniewicz Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 22:34:15 +0000 Topicbox-Message-UUID: a5633d42-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 Lately I have been in a "retro" mood and so maybe that is why I bring up another point relating to code. How difficult is it to port FORTRAN code to Plan9? Back a few years ago in the archives there were inquiries into a FORTRAN compiler and there appeared to be none available. Would it be a good idea to have one to support some of the applications in the number crunching world? -Bill On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 10:10:37PM +0200, Boyd Roberts wrote: > From: "Richard Uhtenwoldt" > > ... code written for Unix is difficult to port to Plan 9 > > it's not that hard, but it depends on what sort of unix braindamage > you've got to port. i did a very rough port of 10k lines of unix > code to plan 9 in two days. of course, sam made the task a lot > easier and the code was pretty modular and ran on a variety of > unix varients -- without 'configure'! >