From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: <9fans@9fans.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu,  3 Feb 2011 17:19:47 -0600
From: EBo <ebo@sandien.com>
In-Reply-To: <2c4856dc13ebea1ee1199551bf83b363@quintile.net>
References: <2c4856dc13ebea1ee1199551bf83b363@quintile.net>
Message-ID: <92289389fa8e0c5bc4591ce66631939e@swcp.com>
User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.4-trunk
Subject: Re: [9fans] Modern development language for Plan 9,
	WAS: Re:  RESOLVED: recoving important header file rudely
Topicbox-Message-UUID: ac01da98-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

 On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 21:32:24 +0000, Steve Simon wrote:
>> > I don't know if f2c meets your needs, but it has always worked.
>>
>>
>> As compared to modern fortran compilers, it is basically a toy.
>>
>
> But he did say some of his source is in ratfor,
> I am pretty sure f2c would be happy with ratfor's output.
>
> years ago I supported the pafec FE package - tens of thousands of
> lines
> of Fortran. All the additions I made I did in ratfor, quite a
> reasonable
> language (compared to F77) I thought.

 Yes, I mentioned f2c WAY back in the thread.  That was something I was
 going to try first.  As for ratfor, I am not sure how much of that code
 I have to contend with, but I am aware of it's existence (and have
 written a few thousand lines in the distance past).

   EBo --