From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <3e1162e60711121633i3bc182e1g7facf693b9da7309@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:33:09 -0800
From: "David Leimbach" <leimy2k@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
In-Reply-To: <AF4B514A-B9BB-4322-9AF8-4290AED0D909@mac.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <13426df10711121101p7f1677a2qcd4dc4f18222117d@mail.gmail.com>
	<d99f5e1ac63934b6ac74f4a2c680369f@quintile.net>
	<218917ef0711121339l65f11a7fx69ca20fe5fc44824@mail.gmail.com>
	<AF4B514A-B9BB-4322-9AF8-4290AED0D909@mac.com>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: f5258930-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Nov 12, 2007 2:39 PM, Pietro Gagliardi <pietro10@mac.com> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2007, at 4:39 PM, Aki Nyrhinen wrote:
>
> > in my limited experience, converting programs that are
> > not excercises in how to use all the possible peculiarities
> > of posix are reasonably easy to get compiling under ape.
> >
> > the problem is, nobody wants reasonably easy.
>
> And yet everyone elsewhere wants easy. Did I step into another
> reality distortion field?
>
> >
> > c++ would be very nice too, so there would be one step
> > less on the road towards firefox. i'm sure ron is more
> > interested in fortran90.
> >
>
> People are working on it. In fact, someone said something about an
> update to the second edition C++ preprocessor a few days/weeks ago.
> Who uses Fortran 90? I haven't seen any F90 compiler in wide use; the
> FSF is still working with F77.
>

I'm pretty sure gfortran does F90...