From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 22310 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2021 16:28:55 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 15 Dec 2021 16:28:55 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 6F1149CBE8; Thu, 16 Dec 2021 02:28:52 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C52A29CB70; Thu, 16 Dec 2021 02:25:58 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ccil-org.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.i=@ccil-org.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.b="516dpodF"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 268309CB70; Thu, 16 Dec 2021 02:25:56 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-qv1-f48.google.com (mail-qv1-f48.google.com [209.85.219.48]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D86EA9CB6F for ; Thu, 16 Dec 2021 02:25:54 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-qv1-f48.google.com with SMTP id kk22so1168640qvb.0 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2021 08:25:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ccil-org.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=WkSoBv5FXbMev7p/s6qqucRop3HtXbBfP5/GRAnCIr4=; b=516dpodFRHecj4DAmzAoV7v0bYc03siey5projuK9dpu9tnRgraCTSvowrYJzWYd8i OKnRRWFc+VLd7GiBM6MyWY6LZvwaS+h5teV/kizfLBQAf1WjEuZhDEMy+dOTMHpepDUr w3rNuGBvu4/wiDdsorqNaFSPUe1th+tk9554ZhQlodWPQK/NWlRb7RUzjiC1YGJFNY3t XEfTCaXTnX4xQYTnuq8nmB2dFUntF1yPdRFCU3ImXdYsYUuwalB/E+JO64X34yVvYk/O 5XsKUFLa8TiVuK/SwNBEU5GcQVBCtbP3MVolurPLZeh0fLZCXXqiZFISl5Kzrsd5DUYX e6bQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=WkSoBv5FXbMev7p/s6qqucRop3HtXbBfP5/GRAnCIr4=; b=REe4gnJKJxSp2d8U9WYopRXC2bYCXqgqaaiU6PirWSTmgdYdzm71bi3hwZl2HjJR1k yOfzcHyjh6dOSO8fPtPkuHaSjZPbiNEd7JgXVxMdPijZ0uk/rB9iBU1VVaYjDPWq64sK A4kLRkkcboYTecY96lnh4t6pH5yBBVo7sj5yIlAMwtvI4ga6cUL87hE6pXptpICiPvap ABkhLsWyNAbn2RSqJYCXpiT4OKx4cRXP5iR8McAs/QN/moFGNAPKMxuZiLg+t+9zaslR 9+G9MZDcaZvmfJGE7Mc+UUf2yVS/eKUCK+gc0dOaP4MDxG0u2egzv8oVnvVl2skpGRo5 FIlg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533JUcaFLdZBaWbG62VIy/tl1wDhWEKGqxLwp2/ak2MzKY6+n+eD 8Nqd8gsC/J7WvGiRm0H/S3HaQU88VFBap7UbDaPy9h0nHV7OpQhM X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzsGCfz6HB6dp93wJ6fLoZJUpN6fRjQaN0obdJL66ENGqn64rBZWu7gm41WgM7EZ/ac+kRW3BNNL3Vy/72gvmo= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:c81:: with SMTP id r1mr11895459qvr.10.1639585553674; Wed, 15 Dec 2021 08:25:53 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <202112150844.1BF8iibJ012519@freefriends.org> In-Reply-To: <202112150844.1BF8iibJ012519@freefriends.org> From: John Cowan Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 11:25:42 -0500 Message-ID: To: Aharon Robbins Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000081887605d331c2d1" Subject: Re: [TUHS] efl(1) anyone? X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --00000000000081887605d331c2d1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 3:48 AM wrote: > - Is my impression that it didn't catch on correct? Or am I ignorant? > My sense after the fact (I wasn't there and could only see the published stuff) is that EFL couldn't compete with the f77 (later f2c) compiler, which came out at about the same time. Because the EFL compiler parses the whole language, unlike Ratfor, it can't cope with extensions to Fortran 66+, so it is stuck in the deep past. Ratfor "does not know [much] Fortran", so if you want to use some new-style declarations or '77-or-later `format' specifiers in Ratfor code, you're cool. (Although by now Fortran probably does everything Ratfor does, although in a much less C-ish way.) --00000000000081887605d331c2d1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 3:48 AM <arnold@skeeve.com> wrote:
<= div>=C2=A0
- Is my impression that it didn't catch on correct? Or am I ignorant?

My sense after the = fact (I wasn't there=C2=A0and could only see the published stuff) is th= at EFL couldn't compete with the f77 (later f2c) compiler,=C2=A0which c= ame out at about the same time.=C2=A0 Because the=C2=A0EFL compiler parses = the whole language, unlike Ratfor, it can't cope with extensions to For= tran 66+, so it is stuck in the deep past.=C2=A0 Ratfor "does not know= [much] Fortran", so if you=C2=A0want to use some new-style declaratio= ns or '77-or-later `format' specifiers in=C2=A0Ratfor code, you'= ;re cool.=C2=A0 (Although by now Fortran probably does everything Ratfor do= es,=C2=A0although in=C2=A0a much less C-ish way.)

--00000000000081887605d331c2d1--