DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Fortran

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác
Former good article nomineeFortran was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 3, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed

Fortran Commands (for 66, 77, 90, 95, 2003...)

[edit]

I wonder if you agree with me that Fortran commands should be written here. It could be useful to be able to compare it with another language's possibilities. (Or maybe they are already somewhere on Wikipedia???) Max

new keywords limit backward compatibility

[edit]

Many of my old programs used variable names that became keywords in more modern Fortrans. It's not a complaint, just a fact to remember so Fortran's outstanding backward compatibility not be over sold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jclaer (talk • contribs) 02:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True. I recently helped to convert a program that had been running for decades on an old computer. It used a subprogram named simply "SUBROUTINE READ ([with some arguments])". When compiled in Linux GFortran 90, strange errors were reported. It turns out that all of the program's READ statements were now accessing this subroutine instead of the built-in READ logic. Presumably, some new feature of this Fortran implementation permits one to call a subroutine as if it were a function, with no need for a "CALL" verb. Renaming the subroutine (E.g., READDATA or READX or XREAD or ...)fixed everything. WHPratt (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a bug in a particular compiler - not a feature of the language. Yes, standard Fortran (of any vintage) does allow you to have a subroutine named READ. There are no reserved words in the language; this is a deliberate design and a fair amount of work went into making sure that the language was unambiguous even when names such as READ were used. I would think it inappropriate to use this Wikipedia article as a place to list every compiler bug that someone has run into, even if they mistakenly attribute it as a language feature. This bug actually sounds familiar to me. I recall one compiler (on an HP Unix, I think) that failed to mangle Fortran procedure names, with the result that naming a subroutine READ caused a conflict with the C read() function. If that's the case mentioned here, it is not only a compiler bug, but a misdiagnosed one, as the conflict was not with the Fortran READ statement.172.248.237.4 (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)Richard Maine[reply]

Yes, there should be no problem with subroutine names like that. In some cases, though, new functions have been added, and will be used in place of user-supplied functions (or subroutines) of the same name. The name needs to be in an EXTERNAL statement in routines where it is referenced. The standard doesn't reply this, as long as the name isn't the name of a Fortran function or subroutine, and most people don't put them in. On most systems, there are ways to distinguish names, avoiding conflicts with system library routines. Gah4 (talk) 06:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record ... . I found myself re-reading this section, and it occurs to me that we did have a short, simple C routine somewhere in the program to accomplish some tricky task or other, some i/o logical unit number duplication thing that CDC Cyber Fortran got away with that more standard Fortrans couldn't. It may be that this was what provoked the error, until the subroutine was renamed. Rest in peace, all! WHPratt (talk) 05:04, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"third generation"

[edit]

Describing FORTRAN as "third generation" in the very first sentence of the article is grossly misleading. The vocabulary of "nth generation" languages is marketing nonsense from the early 1980s era and is not taken seriously by either PL specialists or historians. More importantly, what distinguishes FORTRAN is that it was the first and most enduring major attempt to build a higher-level programming language of expressions and statements. That would be a much better introduction. ~2025-32007-62 (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Modern Fortran Explained" book removed because of "spam"

[edit]

Recently an edition war has started about this Book, which has been listed on the page for a long time.

Metcalf, Michael; Reid, John; Cohen, Malcolm; Bader, Reinhold (2024). Modern Fortran Explained: Incorporating Fortran 2023 (6th ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780198876595.

The editor @MrOllie is apparently considering this reference as "long term spamming".

This is not. This book (along the editions, it started 35 years ago) is a very popular and classical one in the Fortran community, and is constantly recommended as a reference handbook.

Current discussion on a popular Fortran forum about this edition war (in this discussion there is a member of the Fortran Standard Technical Commitee, and who is not one of the authors of the book) : https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/mfe-removed-from-books-in-current-fortran-wikipedia-page/10529/16

This is definitly legitimate to list this book on the page (as long as there is a legitimate sections for recommended books). ~2025-38813-11 (talk) 12:34, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has not 'been listed on the page for a long time'. One of the authors added it, and has been edit warring on and off ever since to try to keep it here. That is indeed long term spamming behaviour. The external discussion on this which is directing users here is inappropriate WP:CANVASSing and is leading to WP:MEATpuppetry. MrOllie (talk) 12:47, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As shown by the version history, (a previous edition of) the book was already listed in 2010. I didn't check further in the past. So yes, "for a long time". I don't know who added it at the beginning, and it doesn't really matter: the book is widely recognized in the Fortran community as a must-have, and nobody in the community can understand why this one in particular is a problem, among the list of about 20 books that are listed. ~2025-38813-11 (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are missing the point and conflating some issues here, MrOllie.
I do not know (or care about) the history of the edits, so I won't chime in on this. Let's assume there has been some spamming, as you say. In the end, it is irrelevant. What should determine the inclusion or exclusion of a resource is its relevance, and this is clearly given in this case. To insist on it's exclusion because of a user's behaviour is irrational, and the equivalent of insisting on the omission of an important event on a history page simply because someone has aggressively tried to include it. That's no way to ensure the quality of a Wikipedia page.
I urge you to take a step back, try to evaluate this objectively, and base your arguments on relevant facts rather than your edit war with a user. ~2025-38795-09 (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to debate this with or repeatedly explain this to a series of anonymous editors who are here due to a canvass violation. I 'urge' everyone who is being directed to this talk page to read WP:CANVASS and WP:MEAT and respect the policies of the Wikipedia community on this. I don't anticipate replying to any more of this here. MrOllie (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You keep arguing only about procedures, and at no moment you are willing to debate about the pertinency of the book.
The book has been consistently present from at least 2010 to 2024, with some updates with new editions were published. This IS a long time.
- Then on 2024-01-18 @Mr.Fortran updated it to the latest revision, and added a link to a site selling book.
- The same day @WikiDan61 removed the link (and I agree on this decision), but he left the book in the list
- On 2024-02-15 @Mr.Fortran restored the culprit link.
- On 2024-05-05 you enter and edit with the reason "→Further reading: rm bookstore link", but you didn't only remove the link, you completely removed the reference (while the previous editor just removed the link), which is another level.
From that moment you never stopped removing the entire reference each time someone was trying to restore it, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS RESTORED WITHOUT THE LINK TO A VENDOR, which was the initial issue. So, YOU have started this edition war without any good reason. ~2025-38813-11 (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop IP user. Please open a discussion as to why this source is suitable rather than continuing to readd it. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the temporary account is correct. The book is a solid resource that has been listed in the article since 2006. The appearance of spam was when Mr.Fortran began adding links to an online bookseller to the "further reading" list, which is when MrOllie became involved. It's a reference book from a reputable publisher. Worldcat shows it is held in hundreds of libraries (mostly academic institutions). Schazjmd (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now this is the kind of discussion we need to be having. Per my suggestion elsewhere, I will post notice of this discussion at WT:COMPSCI and WT:SOFTWARE, the two WikiProjects this page is listed under. Daniel Case (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done and done. Daniel Case (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be the favorite reference, other than the draft copy of the standard itself, which is usually available. Personally, I still have Fortran 8x Explained. Yes the actual authors shouldn't be doing the edits, but I suspect many others would do it. If there are links, they should be to the actual publisher, and not other sellers. Gah4 (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've no direct evidence of the book's standing, but the Oxford University Press is a reputable publisher that, according to the copyright page, has kept this work in print through many editions:Fortran 8x Explained,1987 and 1989; Fortran 90 Explained, 1990; Fortran 90/95 Explained, 1996 and 1999; Fortran 95/2003, 2004; Modern Fortran Explained, 2011; Modern Fortran Explained: Incorporating Fortran 2018, 2018; Modern Fortran Explained: Incorporating Fortran, 2023. We could cynically take the view that it's been well-marketed, but I'm inclined to think that it must have gained a useful degree of acceptance for the OUP to still find it worth their while. NebY (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple editions of MFE are indexed by worldcat.org (meta record by a query by title), which is some indicator of the book's impact. In this index, in comparison to online distributors known to the general public, books are somewhat underrepresented here because before a holding of a library is displayed on worldcat.org, the library both has to opt-in (as an institution) and actually has to share the information about the particular holding. Still, by the page about the 2023 edition, worldcat is aware of 538 libraries with said book around the globe. For comparison, the same index is aware 340 libraries with Curcic's book. How many using both resources as a private desktop reference in print, or online (OUP/Manning/O'Reilly) as part of their studies will not be displayed there. Pythonik (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie, do you have any objections to the book being listed in "further reading" based on the book itself, rather than the behaviors of various editors over the past few years? Schazjmd (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the book to the article. That a major academic publisher such as Oxford has continued the book, first written in 1987, into the 6th edition with experts on the standards writing updates, is a mark of the standard reference in the area. Metcalf has written on the history of Fortran. Reid has done significant work in developing the language, and he and Cohen have been influential in setting the standards for the language. How an editor behaves should have no bearing on whether content belongs in an article. A link to a sales site was added by an editor with few edits and perhaps little understanding of what Wikipedia standards are. Carrying out retribution by removing the book should have no place on this site. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie hasn't edited in awhile, but hopefully he'd agree with the consensus here, so I've restored the book (sans link) to the further reading section. Schazjmd (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, I believe that a link to the actual publisher should be fine. I prefer not to link to Amazon, though it is convenient. Which link was removed? Gah4 (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was the link first added in May 2024. Schazjmd (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so the actual publisher. Now that you mention it, I don't remember that most publishers sell directly, but this one seems to do that. Gah4 (talk) 03:15, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you like this one which doesn't mention the price. Gah4 (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That one also gives Wikipedia Library members access, rather the opposite of a sales link. Good choice. NebY (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]