Hi,

I agree, even admire FORTRAN. I started with FORTRAN-IV, but then 
FORTRAN-77 (now very popular yet -- see www.netlib.org -- tons written in 
this way), but it evolved to F-90, even F-95, and it is well-structured 
now. Even F-77 is good from this aspect. And not forget RATFOR -- have 
implemented it at that time both for CP/M and S/360. It was a dream after 
F-IV. The code effectiveness seems to be a good idea for PIC, too, but I 
think the similarity of C to FORTRAN lets no playground for the latter.

Regards,
Imre

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Russell McMahon wrote:

>> Never ever underestimate what can be done with COBOL or FORTRAN.
>
> It's been a long long long time since I used it, but, there's nothing
> *essentially* wrong with FORTRAN - it's just somewhat clunky.
> You can write in a structured way with it if you wish, even though
> it's not structured per se.
> There really isn't anything you can do with eg C that you can't do
> with FORTRAN.
>
> I'll leave COBOL for others to defend :-).
>
>
>        Russell
>
>
>
> -- 
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist