(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5869) [ukfortran] N2126

Anton Shterenlikht mexas
Mon Jun 5 05:16:16 EDT 2017

>From: John Reid <John.Reid at stfc.ac.uk>
>> Or is it an ivitation to comment?
>> If so, I have some comments.
>I don't think these are mutually exclusive. Commenting would be good.

I read this very long paper.
I think the tone is a bit
too downcast and pessimistic.

Budgeting is a great idea,
but I doubt WG5 was not budgeting before,
at least in some sense.
Most successful projects go
over budget - something about
human nature I believe.

Focussing on use cases is a great idea,
but presumably all proposers of new features
always had some supporting use cases behind?
What about a demand to have features
widely available, and widely used,
in other high level languages - is that not a use case?
Or what about a demand to keep up
with evolving hardware - GPU, KNL, etc.
Is this a use case?

A greater role to compiler engineers -
might shift the balance of power
more towards vendors.  While this is a legitimate
point of view, indeed one might argue
that only those who have to implement
the standard should decide what's in it,
it is only one view.
Anybody who's followed comp.lang.fortran
lately would have seen the level of interest
from Fortran users in what they deem
the "missing" features.

Talking about comp.lang.fortran, which
apart from vendor specific groups and lists
seems to be the most active Fortran
discussion platform, is it in WG5 interest
to engage more directly with CLF?


More information about the J3 mailing list