****ing Fortran

[KrazyHorse]

And its ****ing common blocks and implicit type declarations.

You ****ing piece of ****.

[KrazyHorse]

I just spent 3 ****ing hours trying to figure out why my output wasn't making sense.

IF THE TYPES INSIDE THE COMMON BLOCK DO NOT AGREE BETWEEN ONE ROUTINE AND ANOTHER IT WOULD BE NICE IF YOU WOULD GIVE ME AN ERROR, YOU ****ING PIECE OF **** G77 COMPILER INSTEAD OF JUST HAPPILY COMPILING AND THEN OUTPUTTING CRAP

[BlackCat]

Yeah, fortran is a tough lady to dance with.

[Harovan]

Don't expect type safety from a language that had no major improvements since the 70s. Common and Equivalence statements, my ass. Can it get any worse?

And F77 is gay. Fortran IV is where it's at.

[KrazyHorse]

Unfortunately, many things in physics are written in 77. Don't have much of a choice. Could wrap in C most of the time, but not for current problem (am editing somebody else's code to make it do what I want)

[Harovan]

The leetest thing in Fortran is the triple way GOTO statement. Sometimes I wish I had something like this in C, or at least I could do something like switch (x) {case x<0: ... case x == 0: ... case x > 0: ...}

F77 is a lame try to introduce structured programming into a language, that was designed to write spaghetti code.

[Asher]

Fortran 2003 is where it's at. It's got objects.

[KrazyHorse]

I'm trying to avoid GOTO statements, but my laziness is getting the better of me.

[Cort Haus]

Wasn't the original Crowther-Woods 'Adventure' written in Fortran? Supposedly quite an achievement in a language with no string-handling ISTR.

[Jon Miller]

I hate Gotos

I liked 90 and 95, although I am probably now more familiar with C++ (ROOT)

I would like ot know about 2003

JM

[Gatekeeper]

BASIC, baby BASIC!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I'm trying to avoid GOTO statements, but my laziness is getting the better of me.

Your laziness will bite you in the ass next time you have to debug your code or even figure out what it's doing...

[Eroberer]

Is there not a feature in the compiler that will let you turn on warnings for the typing inconsistencies? I guess not, but damn.

[Harovan]

With hindsight, GOTOs are of course evil by definition. But back then, when there were no structured if/else and switch/case statement in most languages, they were a necessary mean to build the lacking flow control structures. Back in Fortran IV, IF statements did not even have a then-block, all you could do was to jump to a label, hence again GOTO, even if it was only implicitly written.

The three-way GOTO I mentioned was really a three way IF: IF (expression) label1, label2, label3. The first label would be taken on expression<0, the second ==0 and the last >0. From this simple and beautiful () construct you could build all else, like !=0 (IF(exp) label1, label2, label1) etc.

Today I have to do something atrocious like

if (expression) {
if (expression<0) {
// less than 0
}
else {
// greater than 0
}
}
else {
// zero
}

I miss the three way GOTO.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Your laziness will bite you in the ass next time you have to debug your code or even figure out what it's doing...

My code is robust. No debugging necessary after it initially starts working.

I build code like a ****ing tank.