Re: How's dot.net doing nowadays?

Ralph wrote:
"dpb" <none@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:fn694s$6om$1@xxxxxxxxxxx
Ralph wrote:
"dpb" <none@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:fn5q87$o9f$1@xxxxxxxxxxx
Ralph wrote:
...
The calling convention that we call "stdcall" today, was originally
keyworded "_fortran", ...
I'll admit I'm a (very) latecomer to the world of MS (and PC's in
general) but I thought that was PASCAL???

--
By the time MSC came along "PASCAL" became the more common keyword. MSC
provided both, fortran and pascal, to be source compatible with other
compilers. Another common keyword in the early days was _basic. <g>

[I should probably add, before someone nails me, fortran and stdcall are
not
exactly the same thing. fortran converts all names to upper-case,
stdcall
does not.]
I don't think I ever did any mixed-language development w/ the MS
FORTRAN compiler. The first significant pc-based Fortran I did was on
OS/2 w/ Watcom, then when we moved that package to NT4 went w/ the
DEC/Compag DVF/CVF compiler which inherited used the DEC VAX-similar
cDEC directive set in which there are several options to control the
name decorating as needs to suit...

Of course, the VAX compilers all were essentially language-neutral for
all languages (BASIC included) which was a wonderful feature of VMS...

--

I got to work a bit with VMS. I rather enjoyed it. I remember the EVE
editor. All the commands were invoked from the numeric pad.

EDT and Teco rulez... :)

I loved the Watcom Compiliers. They were the master.

Except, of course, the Fortran compiler was limited to F77 (and their particular set of extensions) and abandoned. While they're now open source, there's been no work on the Fortran compiler and I seriously doubt there will ever be any to implement even F95, what more the current '03 Standard and the eventual '08 one so they're farther and farther out of date. That, of course, is of minimal importance for legacy apps, but for new work is pretty limiting.

--
.