Lahey FORTRAN for DOS

[Aleph Mobius]

I have a little machine that runs DOS 5.0 and has 640k of RAM. It has
been a while since I've done any FORTRAN so I would like to use this
machine to practice so I don't forget it. Is the 16-bit version of
Lahey FORTRAN available for download anywhere? I have read some good
reviews of this compiler in particular. If not, are there any other
16-bit compilers you can recommend?

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

Aleph Mobius wrote:

> I have a little machine that runs DOS 5.0 and has 640k of RAM. It has
> been a while since I've done any FORTRAN so I would like to use this
> machine to practice so I don't forget it. Is the 16-bit version of
> Lahey FORTRAN available for download anywhere? I have read some good
> reviews of this compiler in particular. If not, are there any other
> 16-bit compilers you can recommend?

OpenWatcom supports DOS as host and both 16 and 32 bit DOS as target
platforms. That is, you can compile on any supported host to
run on any supported target. It includes the DOS extenders to
run 32 bit mode under DOS.

http://www.openwatcom.org/ you can download directly, or buy
the CD. The $29.95 CD includes a donation to keep the project
running.

-- glen

[b***@aol.com]

***@aol.com (Aleph Mobius) wrote in message news:<***@posting.google.com>...
> I have a little machine that runs DOS 5.0 and has 640k of RAM. It has
> been a while since I've done any FORTRAN so I would like to use this
> machine to practice so I don't forget it. Is the 16-bit version of
> Lahey FORTRAN available for download anywhere? I have read some good
> reviews of this compiler in particular. If not, are there any other
> 16-bit compilers you can recommend?

Lahey's Fortran compilers are commercial products and are not LEGALLY
available for free download, except for trial use.

Besides OpenWatcom, which Glen H. mentioned, there is BC Fortran at
http://drn.digitalriver.com/product.php[id]45854[SiteID]macesoftware .

Google "g77 DOS" for places to download g77.

There is a wealth of Fortran compilers, some free, for Windows, and
you can use them from the Windows command line, DOS-style. Links are
at http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Programming/Languages/Fortran/Compilers/
. Fortran has advanced beyond FORTRAN 77 while maintaining backwards
compatibility. I think you may be needlessly restricting yourself by
considering only FORTRAN 77 for DOS.

[Aleph Mobius]

Thank you for the responses. I had hoped, since this compiler comes so
highly recommended, that maybe Lahey had made their old 16bit compiler
freely available like Borland did with several of their old compilers.
I have looked at BC before but doesn't it require a certain program to
be resident in memory before you can run any program compiled with it?
I think that OpenWatcom may be the best option. I understand what you
are saying about using a compiler that uses a newer standard but has
one even been created that will run in DOS with 640k? Any other
comments? Thanks again.

[E P Chandler]

***@aol.com wrote:

> > I have a little machine that runs DOS 5.0 and has 640k of RAM. It has
> > been a while since I've done any FORTRAN so I would like to use this
> > machine to practice so I don't forget it.

[snip]

> Besides OpenWatcom, which Glen H. mentioned, there is BC Fortran at
> http://drn.digitalriver.com/product.php[id]45854[SiteID]macesoftware .
>

About 2 years ago, I posted a note about this compiler which was
highly critical of it. I've since gone back and tested it in more
depth. Although I would recommend either the EMX port or the DJGPP
(Delorie) port of G77 first, for a DOS system, BC Fortran seems
somewhat more serviceable than I first thought, bearing in mind that
the runtime system does stay resident in memory and that the program
does not use the 8087 numeric co-processor. Also I don't remember the
problems I had with double precision that I noted before. So far I
have not been able to reproduce them.

I recommend finding a file called "fortrlst.zip" which contains a
fairly complete syntax summary.

Here is my updated list of bugs for this compiler:

1. integer*4 2**31 prints as -0
2. complex or character declaration in col 1 (free form) is taken as a
comment
3. formatted numeric read fails unless something is printed first (to
any unit)
4. do loops not executed fully if loop count is > 65535 even with
integer*4 variable as loop variable
5. formatted internal write pads target string with ) instead of
spaces



adding a print * before the first read solves #3

[Aleph Mobius]

> > > I have a little machine that runs DOS 5.0 and has 640k of RAM. It has

Neither G77 or OpenWatcom will run on it because it only has 640k or
RAM. There is no extended memory. I am looking for something along the
lines of QBasic, Turbo C, Turbo C++, or Pascal. Those work fine in
real mode. I suppose BC would work but I would like to avoid that if
it is possible. Thank you for the information so far but are there any
other suggestions? If I do have to spend just a little to find an old
compiler, what would you recommended? Where can I look for old
commercial software besides eBay?

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

Aleph Mobius wrote:
>>>>I have a little machine that runs DOS 5.0 and has 640k of RAM. It has

> Neither G77 or OpenWatcom will run on it because it only has 640k or
> RAM. There is no extended memory. I am looking for something along the
> lines of QBasic, Turbo C, Turbo C++, or Pascal. Those work fine in
> real mode. I suppose BC would work but I would like to avoid that if
> it is possible. Thank you for the information so far but are there any
> other suggestions? If I do have to spend just a little to find an old
> compiler, what would you recommended? Where can I look for old
> commercial software besides eBay?

Instead of a new compiler, why don't you find someone throwing
away a 486 machine with extended memory? It happens many times
every day.

I believe Watcom compiled 16 bit programs will run on DOS
machines with 640K RAM, unless your program needs more
than that. I had forgotten that the compiler wouldn't.

When I first bought the Watcom compiler I liked the linker
so much more than the microsoft linker that I would use it
even with the MS compilers. It has a very good overlay system
which you might need to run larger programs in 640K.

You can also cross compile 16 bit DOS code from 32 bit windows
or OS/2 systems.

-- glen

[Kevin G. Rhoads]

Dynacomp is still selling a real mode Fortran compiler -- only problem is
it is F66. Price is $9.99 and shows up regularly on eBay. (I think this
is the old SuperSoft Fortran -- a compatible C compiler is also available
for $9.99)

Microsoft Fortran 3.2 shows up fairly often on eBay, this is Subset F77
and old, but available fairly often usually at reasonable price. This
is 1984/1985 vintage and can target either DOS 1.x or DOS 2.x IIRC.

EMSPS.COM has "old" tools and typically has several copies of various
versions of MS and other Fortrans for 16 bits, BUT is very pricey. (Real gouging!)
MS 3.x are subset F77 This is the last real-mode compiler from MS, compiler EXEs
after this version are not real mode EXEs but OS/2 Family Mode EXEs and so require
at least a 286 processor.
MS 4.x is Full F77 -- This is an OS/2 1.x (16 bit) family mode EXE should run
under DOS, but will require at least a 286 and have trouble with reasonable
sized source files in 640k.
MS 5.x adds some F90-ish stuff. Also OS/2 1.x family mode EXEs.

Old version of WatFor77 is available on-line for download (don't have
the URL off hand, you can ask on the openwatcom fortran NG) This is
NOT OpenWatcom, but a predecessor -- appears to compile to some interpreted
code.

Perhaps if you ask Lahey very nicely, you can get a copy of either F77L or LP77,
even though they no longer officially sell either. I am surprised that
companies seem unwilling to sell old versions if only on a "no support"
basis.

The Ryan-Mcfarland Fortran was bought up by LPI, and last time I checked
(some years ago) RM/Fort v3 was still available. That is full F77, the
compiler EXE is OS/2 Family mode.

[[e-mail]]

"Kevin G. Rhoads" <***@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>Dynacomp is still selling a real mode Fortran compiler -- only problem is

>it is F66. Price is $9.99 and shows up regularly on eBay. (I think this

>is the old SuperSoft Fortran -- a compatible C compiler is also available
>for $9.99)

<useful info snipped>

I can't help asking -- why is DOS still an important platform for some people?
Could you please enlighten me?



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Kevin G. Rhoads]

>I can't help asking -- why is DOS still an important platform for some people?
>Could you please enlighten me?

I can't (of course) answer for others, but for me:
1) DOS is not much of an OS, it doesn't get in the way of low level access
2) DOS is not much of an OS, it has minimal requirements (cheap hardware)
3) DOS is not much of an OS, it is heavily documented -- even the UNdocumented
DOS stuff is highly documented (I know that probably sounds inane, but it is
true)
4) DOS is stable -- MS is NOT changing things every few months (this is ALSO
a problem with Linux unless you "freeze" your version, then after a bit people
look at you weirdly if you ask for help -- and the first response is often "upgrade")
5) there are several DOS-alikes, some of which are free and some of which are opensource
(FreeDOS, RxDOS, &c)
6) I have a lot of copies of DOS lying around -- and it is from the days you
bought a copy so moving (N.B., "moving" not "copying") it from machine to machine is
NOT an issue, not legally and not technically -- and I can use "free" alternatives
7) I have lots of tools to target DOS - F77 compilers, C, C++, Basic, Pascal,
Cobol compilers and assemblers &c and I know how to do mixed language stuff
and other oddball but useful things with them already.
8) DOS programs can run under
a) DOS
b) Windows
c) Linux (DOSEMU &c)
d) MacOS (SoftPC, SoftWindows &c)
DOS real mode EXEs are almost as universally portable as is Java code [ ;-) ]
and I don't have to program in Java (and I can use Fortran2Java conversion if necessary)
9) I am coding programs that usually do NOT need GUI but do need to handle data,
I can do files for data in DOS and the 640k limit is typically a non-issue --
if 640k becomes an issue I can readily take a DOS-targeting source and recompile
to a Win32 console mode target with few or no source changes
10) A "hello world" EXE is only a few 10's of kilobytes, not a half-meg or more
11) I can put a useful development environment on a 100M zip disk (or even a
few floppies) and take it with me, install it and de-install it at some remote
site without breaking someone's setup

and probably most important:
12) inertia

[Herman D. Knoble]

And the size of a Watfor77 for DOS compiled .EXE for a Hello World program is:
50,096 bytes. Whereas the size of the same program compiled using CVF is:
237,568

If one is running lab equipment that has a DOS interface, and several
still do, Watfor77's .exe has distinct advantages (as well as super
diagnostics).

Skip Knoble


On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 21:47:14 +0000, "Kevin G. Rhoads" <***@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

-|>I can't help asking -- why is DOS still an important platform for some people?
-|>Could you please enlighten me?
-|
-|I can't (of course) answer for others, but for me:
-|1) DOS is not much of an OS, it doesn't get in the way of low level access
-|2) DOS is not much of an OS, it has minimal requirements (cheap hardware)
-|3) DOS is not much of an OS, it is heavily documented -- even the UNdocumented
-|DOS stuff is highly documented (I know that probably sounds inane, but it is
-|true)
-|4) DOS is stable -- MS is NOT changing things every few months (this is ALSO
-|a problem with Linux unless you "freeze" your version, then after a bit people
-|look at you weirdly if you ask for help -- and the first response is often "upgrade")
-|5) there are several DOS-alikes, some of which are free and some of which are opensource
-|(FreeDOS, RxDOS, &c)
-|6) I have a lot of copies of DOS lying around -- and it is from the days you
-|bought a copy so moving (N.B., "moving" not "copying") it from machine to machine is
-|NOT an issue, not legally and not technically -- and I can use "free" alternatives
-|7) I have lots of tools to target DOS - F77 compilers, C, C++, Basic, Pascal,
-|Cobol compilers and assemblers &c and I know how to do mixed language stuff
-|and other oddball but useful things with them already.
-|8) DOS programs can run under
-|a) DOS
-|b) Windows
-|c) Linux (DOSEMU &c)
-|d) MacOS (SoftPC, SoftWindows &c)
-|DOS real mode EXEs are almost as universally portable as is Java code [ ;-) ]
-|and I don't have to program in Java (and I can use Fortran2Java conversion if necessary)
-|9) I am coding programs that usually do NOT need GUI but do need to handle data,
-|I can do files for data in DOS and the 640k limit is typically a non-issue --
-|if 640k becomes an issue I can readily take a DOS-targeting source and recompile
-|to a Win32 console mode target with few or no source changes
-|10) A "hello world" EXE is only a few 10's of kilobytes, not a half-meg or more
-|11) I can put a useful development environment on a 100M zip disk (or even a
-|few floppies) and take it with me, install it and de-install it at some remote
-|site without breaking someone's setup
-|
-|and probably most important:
-|12) inertia


Herman D. (Skip) Knoble, Research Associate
(a computing professional for 38 years)
Email: SkipKnobleLESS at SPAMpsu dot edu
Web: http://www.personal.psu.edu/hdk
Penn State Information Technology Services
Academic Services and Emerging Technologies
Graduate Education and Research Services
Penn State University
214C Computer Building
University Park, PA 16802-21013
Phone:[phone] Fax:[phone]

[Herman D. Knoble]

BTW, the size of the Watfor77 compiler and necessary library is < 157,000 bytes
or almost 1/10th of a floppy diskette. Significant Fortran 77 applications
can be compiled to .EXE's with less than 256K of RAM.

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 08:17:10 -0500, Herman D. Knoble <***@SPAMpsu.DOT.edu>
wrote:

-|And the size of a Watfor77 for DOS compiled .EXE for a Hello World program is:
-| 50,096 bytes. Whereas the size of the same program compiled using CVF is:
-| 237,568
-|
-|If one is running lab equipment that has a DOS interface, and several
-|still do, Watfor77's .exe has distinct advantages (as well as super
-|diagnostics).
-|
-|Skip Knoble
-|
-|
-|On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 21:47:14 +0000, "Kevin G. Rhoads" <***@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
-|
-|-|>I can't help asking -- why is DOS still an important platform for some people?
-|-|>Could you please enlighten me?
-|-|
-|-|I can't (of course) answer for others, but for me:
-|-|1) DOS is not much of an OS, it doesn't get in the way of low level access
-|-|2) DOS is not much of an OS, it has minimal requirements (cheap hardware)
-|-|3) DOS is not much of an OS, it is heavily documented -- even the UNdocumented
-|-|DOS stuff is highly documented (I know that probably sounds inane, but it is
-|-|true)
-|-|4) DOS is stable -- MS is NOT changing things every few months (this is ALSO
-|-|a problem with Linux unless you "freeze" your version, then after a bit people
-|-|look at you weirdly if you ask for help -- and the first response is often "upgrade")
-|-|5) there are several DOS-alikes, some of which are free and some of which are
opensource
-|-|(FreeDOS, RxDOS, &c)
-|-|6) I have a lot of copies of DOS lying around -- and it is from the days you
-|-|bought a copy so moving (N.B., "moving" not "copying") it from machine to machine is
-|-|NOT an issue, not legally and not technically -- and I can use "free" alternatives
-|-|7) I have lots of tools to target DOS - F77 compilers, C, C++, Basic, Pascal,
-|-|Cobol compilers and assemblers &c and I know how to do mixed language stuff
-|-|and other oddball but useful things with them already.
-|-|8) DOS programs can run under
-|-|a) DOS
-|-|b) Windows
-|-|c) Linux (DOSEMU &c)
-|-|d) MacOS (SoftPC, SoftWindows &c)
-|-|DOS real mode EXEs are almost as universally portable as is Java code [ ;-) ]
-|-|and I don't have to program in Java (and I can use Fortran2Java conversion if
necessary)
-|-|9) I am coding programs that usually do NOT need GUI but do need to handle data,
-|-|I can do files for data in DOS and the 640k limit is typically a non-issue --
-|-|if 640k becomes an issue I can readily take a DOS-targeting source and recompile
-|-|to a Win32 console mode target with few or no source changes
-|-|10) A "hello world" EXE is only a few 10's of kilobytes, not a half-meg or more
-|-|11) I can put a useful development environment on a 100M zip disk (or even a
-|-|few floppies) and take it with me, install it and de-install it at some remote
-|-|site without breaking someone's setup
-|-|
-|-|and probably most important:
-|-|12) inertia
-|
-|
-| Herman D. (Skip) Knoble, Research Associate
-| (a computing professional for 38 years)
-| Email: SkipKnobleLESS at SPAMpsu dot edu
-| Web: http://www.personal.psu.edu/hdk
-| Penn State Information Technology Services
-| Academic Services and Emerging Technologies
-| Graduate Education and Research Services
-| Penn State University
-| 214C Computer Building
-| University Park, PA 16802-21013
-| Phone:[phone] Fax:[phone]


Herman D. (Skip) Knoble, Research Associate
(a computing professional for 38 years)
Email: SkipKnobleLESS at SPAMpsu dot edu
Web: http://www.personal.psu.edu/hdk
Penn State Information Technology Services
Academic Services and Emerging Technologies
Graduate Education and Research Services
Penn State University
214C Computer Building
University Park, PA 16802-21013
Phone:[phone] Fax:[phone]

[Kevin G. Rhoads]

All compiled with default options, mostly linked with MS Overlay Linker v3.69
(except MS 4.1, 5.00, 5.10, and the three 32 bit EXEs)

35,116 hello_i1.exe IBM Personal FORTRAN v1.0
21,506 hello_i2.exe IBM Personal FORTRAN v2.0
23,592 hellom32.exe MS Fortran v3.20
28,646 hello330.exe MS Fortran v3.30
28,630 hello331.exe MS Fortran v3.31
17,469 hellom41.exe MS Fortran v4.1
18,327 hellom50.exe MS Fortran v5.00
20,867 hellom51.exe MS Fortran v5.10
31,187 hello_lp.exe Lahey Personal Fortran
23,058 hello_l4.exe Lahey F77L v4.0
101,888 hellofp4.exe MS Fortran Powerstation v4
303,312 hellodf5.exe Digital Visual Fortran 5.1d
327,032 hellodf6.exe Compaq Visual Fortran 6.1
28,001 hellopr1.exe IBM Professional Fortran v1
29,664 hellopr2.exe IBM Professional Fortran v2
32,900 hellorm3.exe RyanMcfarland Fortran v3
-------------------------------------------------

program hello
write (*,7000) ' Hello world.'
stop ' Bye.'
7000 format(A)
end

[Paul Van Delst]

Kevin G. Rhoads wrote:
> All compiled with default options, mostly linked with MS Overlay Linker v3.69
> (except MS 4.1, 5.00, 5.10, and the three 32 bit EXEs)
>
> 35,116 hello_i1.exe IBM Personal FORTRAN v1.0
> 21,506 hello_i2.exe IBM Personal FORTRAN v2.0
> 23,592 hellom32.exe MS Fortran v3.20
> 28,646 hello330.exe MS Fortran v3.30
> 28,630 hello331.exe MS Fortran v3.31
> 17,469 hellom41.exe MS Fortran v4.1
> 18,327 hellom50.exe MS Fortran v5.00
> 20,867 hellom51.exe MS Fortran v5.10
> 31,187 hello_lp.exe Lahey Personal Fortran
> 23,058 hello_l4.exe Lahey F77L v4.0
> 101,888 hellofp4.exe MS Fortran Powerstation v4
> 303,312 hellodf5.exe Digital Visual Fortran 5.1d
> 327,032 hellodf6.exe Compaq Visual Fortran 6.1
> 28,001 hellopr1.exe IBM Professional Fortran v1
> 29,664 hellopr2.exe IBM Professional Fortran v2
> 32,900 hellorm3.exe RyanMcfarland Fortran v3
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> program hello
> write (*,7000) ' Hello world.'
> stop ' Bye.'
> 7000 format(A)
> end

What the hell, the sun streaming through the window is making me sleepy......

lnx:scratch : pgf90 hello.f90
lnx:scratch : dir a.out
-rwxr-xr-x 1 130K Nov 9 15:22 a.out*
lnx:scratch : ifort hello.f90
lnx:scratch : dir a.out
-rwxr-xr-x 1 409K Nov 9 15:22 a.out*
lnx:scratch : lf95 hello.f90
Encountered 0 errors, 0 warnings in file hello.f90.
lnx:scratch : dir a.out
-rwxr-xr-x 1 13K Nov 9 15:23 a.out*

409K for ifort! Wow.

cheers,

paulv

--
Paul van Delst
CIMSS @ NOAA/NCEP/EMC

[Michael Prager]

"Kevin G. Rhoads" <***@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

>All compiled with default options, mostly linked with MS Overlay Linker v3.69
>(except MS 4.1, 5.00, 5.10, and the three 32 bit EXEs)
>
> 35,116 hello_i1.exe IBM Personal FORTRAN v1.0
> 21,506 hello_i2.exe IBM Personal FORTRAN v2.0
> 23,592 hellom32.exe MS Fortran v3.20
> 28,646 hello330.exe MS Fortran v3.30
> 28,630 hello331.exe MS Fortran v3.31
> 17,469 hellom41.exe MS Fortran v4.1
> 18,327 hellom50.exe MS Fortran v5.00
> 20,867 hellom51.exe MS Fortran v5.10
> 31,187 hello_lp.exe Lahey Personal Fortran
> 23,058 hello_l4.exe Lahey F77L v4.0
> 101,888 hellofp4.exe MS Fortran Powerstation v4
> 303,312 hellodf5.exe Digital Visual Fortran 5.1d
> 327,032 hellodf6.exe Compaq Visual Fortran 6.1
> 28,001 hellopr1.exe IBM Professional Fortran v1
> 29,664 hellopr2.exe IBM Professional Fortran v2
> 32,900 hellorm3.exe RyanMcfarland Fortran v3
>-------------------------------------------------
>
> program hello
> write (*,7000) ' Hello world.'
> stop ' Bye.'
> 7000 format(A)
> end

It is interesting, and it shows that priorities have changed.
Modern computers have 100+ Gb disks, not 360 Kb floppies. On
the other hand, they can do a lot more (though you and I may not
use it).

As a result, runtime libraries are much larger, and that causes
a lot of overhead in executable size. It doesn't seem to matter
to most users (including me these days). When I complained year
ago, one vendor told me it wasn't economically feasible to
modify the linker and libraries to omit routines not used by a
particular program, and that there was very little demand to do
so.

MHP


--
Mike Prager, NOAA, Beaufort, NC
Address spam-trapped; remove color to reply.
* Opinions expressed are personal and not represented otherwise.
* Any use of tradenames does not constitute a NOAA endorsement.

[Kevin G. Rhoads]

>Modern computers have 100+ Gb disks, not 360 Kb floppies.

Actually IBM Personal Fortran v1.0 came on three 160k floppies (DOS 1.x,
8 sector/track, single sided); one for compiler first pass, one for
rest of compiler and one for linker & libraries.

I was using it on a PC maxed out to 640k, but DOS1 couldn't use more
than 448k (IIRC). We were running a patched version of DOS1.1 which
would set up the rest of RAM as a ramdrive. With 192k allocated to
DOS and the other 448k as a ramdisk, after booting I'd copy both
compiler phases, linker and the libraries to the ramdrive and
it really flew. The first time I used an XT, the harddrive was
glacial in comparison. Of course, if a program crash took down
DOS, you didn't lose the drive contents (usually).

Of course, certain aspects of that compiler were buggy as all getout.

[Michael Prager]

"Kevin G. Rhoads" <***@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

>I was using it on a PC maxed out to 640k, but DOS1 couldn't use more
>than 448k (IIRC). [...]

I was recalling this morning that one could use a functioning
spreadsheet on a computer with 640K. Now video cards have 64
Mb, and disks can have 8 Mb of cache. Still, program crash.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.


--
Mike Prager, NOAA, Beaufort, NC
Address spam-trapped; remove color to reply.
* Opinions expressed are personal and not represented otherwise.
* Any use of tradenames does not constitute a NOAA endorsement.

[Richard E Maine]

Michael Prager <***@noaa.gov> writes:

> I was recalling this morning that one could use a functioning
> spreadsheet on a computer with 640K.

A *LOT* less than 640k. The original spreadsheet was Visicalc.
See <http://www.bricklin.com/visicalc.htm> (thanks to google).
Though I never used it much (and I'm still not really "into"
spreadsheets) I'm fairly sure I still have a copy of Visicalc
for my old Apple 2e (which I also still have, though I haven't
powered it up for a year or so).

I don't recall the system requirements. My system was pretty high end
with 128k of memory, but I suspect it might have run ok a 64k (not
640k) system, or even 48k, which was what my Apple 2+ had before I
wire-wrapped my own 16k memory expansion card by hand (too expensive
to buy one at several hundred dollars for the 16k).

I needed the extra 16k to run the UCSD Pascal system, which included
the first Fortran compiler that I had on one of my personal systems.

In my quick skim of the above site, I notice that it says that the
executable for the first Dos version (which was later than the
Apple one) was about 27k in size.. Those who have just been posting
sizes for "Hello, world." might be amused by that comparison.

--
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: my first.last at org.domain | experience comes from bad judgment.
org: nasa, domain: gov | -- Mark Twain

[E P Chandler]

Richard E Maine <***@see.signature> wrote in message news:<***@MLMCE0000L22801.local>...
> Michael Prager <***@noaa.gov> writes:

> > I was recalling this morning that one could use a functioning
> > spreadsheet on a computer with 640K.

[snip]

> I don't recall the system requirements. My system was pretty high end
> with 128k of memory, but I suspect it might have run ok a 64k (not
> 640k) system, or even 48k, which was what my Apple 2+ had before I

> wire-wrapped my own 16k memory expansion card by hand (too expensive
> to buy one at several hundred dollars for the 16k).

[wow!]

> I needed the extra 16k to run the UCSD Pascal system, which included
> the first Fortran compiler that I had on one of my personal systems.

Apple Fortran was expensive, came on copy protected disks, had no
double precision, and integers were limited (by Pascal's MAXINT) to
-32767..32767, but the software *did* run on a system smaller than a
mainframe.

[Richard Maine]

***@juno.com (E P Chandler) writes:

> Apple Fortran was expensive,

The whole computer was expensive. :-( I had over $6000 in my Apple 2e
(just for hardware). I big chunk of that was the pair of 8" floppy
drives and the controller and case for them; that cost me $2k, but wow
did those floppies hold a lot - a whole meg. With the sturdy case,
hulky power supply, and the 2 drives, the external floppy box was 75
pounds.

> came on copy protected disks, had no
> double precision, and integers were limited (by Pascal's MAXINT) to
> -32767..32767, but the software *did* run on a system smaller than a
> mainframe.

I'd forgotten about the copy-protected disks, but yes, that was an
annoyance. I think I cracked it to make backups (as you say, it
was expensive, and floppies are fragile), but I forget the details.

One other limitation I recall was that it didn't implement backspace
of unformatted files. The thing I most recall about that was that the
documentation claimed that backspace as defined by the standard was
flawed to the extent of being unimplementable on disk files. Since it
was implemented and worked fine on the "big computer" compilers, I
wasn't impressed by the claim that it was unimplementable. No, they
weren't referring to the subtlties of backspace after hitting an
end-of-file. They just hadn't thought of the possibility of putting
record-length trailers.

Me:
>> wire-wrapped my own 16k memory expansion card by hand (too expensive
>> to buy one at several hundred dollars for the 16k).

> [wow!]

Though I have to admit that my wire wrapping was less than professional.
I got it to work, but obviously made one of the classic wire wrap
errors - must had wires routed a little too tightly around some posts.
Eventually that causes the thin insulation between the wire and the post
to go, giving a short. I never found exactly where the short was, but
did observe that all would work fine if I put some tension on the card
in the right direction (probably relieving pressure on the shorting
spot). So yes, for a while, my computer was literally held together
by rubber bands, which were necessary for its functioning. :-)

Eventually things got worse and the rubber bands no longer worked as
well. But by then, prices on the memory cards had dropped enough
that I just went out and bought a commercial one.

--
Richard Maine
email: my last name at domain
domain: summertriangle dot net

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

Richard Maine wrote:

(snip)

> One other limitation I recall was that it didn't implement backspace
> of unformatted files. The thing I most recall about that was that the
> documentation claimed that backspace as defined by the standard was
> flawed to the extent of being unimplementable on disk files. Since it
> was implemented and worked fine on the "big computer" compilers, I
> wasn't impressed by the claim that it was unimplementable. No, they
> weren't referring to the subtlties of backspace after hitting an
> end-of-file. They just hadn't thought of the possibility of putting
> record-length trailers.

Record length trailers help, but you can always read from
the beginning until you get to the record before.

(snip)

> Though I have to admit that my wire wrapping was less than professional.
> I got it to work, but obviously made one of the classic wire wrap
> errors - must had wires routed a little too tightly around some posts.

I once knew someone with an 8080 wirewrapped system where one
of the wire wrap posts poked through the tape wrapped around
the power line fuse. As I remember it, he didn't lose too many
chips, but it could have been pretty bad.

-- glen

[Klaus Wacker]

Richard Maine <***@see.signature> wrote:
[...]
>
> One other limitation I recall was that it didn't implement backspace
> of unformatted files. The thing I most recall about that was that the
> documentation claimed that backspace as defined by the standard was
> flawed to the extent of being unimplementable on disk files. Since it
> was implemented and worked fine on the "big computer" compilers, I
> wasn't impressed by the claim that it was unimplementable. No, they
> weren't referring to the subtlties of backspace after hitting an
> end-of-file. They just hadn't thought of the possibility of putting
> record-length trailers.

If I remember correctly, there was at least one "big computer" Fortran
implementation which didn't implement backspace of unformatted files:
IBM. Or maybe it was implemented, but by rewind and reread from the
beginning (or form the beginning of the last "physical record"? That
would give rather unpredictable results). RECFM=VBS doesn't have
record-length trailers. I remember clearly that I was told by my
supervisors not to use this feature.


--
Klaus Wacker ***@Physik.Uni-Dortmund.DE
Experimentelle Physik V http://www.physik.uni-dortmund.de/~wacker
Universitaet Dortmund Tel.: [phone]
D-44221 Dortmund Fax: [phone]

[Jan Vorbrüggen]

>>One other limitation I recall was that it didn't implement backspace
>>of unformatted files. [...] They just hadn't thought of the possibility
>>of putting record-length trailers.
> If I remember correctly, there was at least one "big computer" Fortran
> implementation which didn't implement backspace of unformatted files:
> IBM. Or maybe it was implemented, but by rewind and reread from the
> beginning (or form the beginning of the last "physical record"? That
> would give rather unpredictable results). RECFM=VBS doesn't have
> record-length trailers. I remember clearly that I was told by my
> supervisors not to use this feature.

VMS has similar problems if you use the default of variable-length records
for the purpose.

Jan

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

Klaus Wacker wrote:

(snip)

> If I remember correctly, there was at least one "big computer" Fortran
> implementation which didn't implement backspace of unformatted files:
> IBM. Or maybe it was implemented, but by rewind and reread from the
> beginning (or form the beginning of the last "physical record"? That
> would give rather unpredictable results). RECFM=VBS doesn't have
> record-length trailers. I remember clearly that I was told by my
> supervisors not to use this feature.

I am pretty sure OS/360 Fortran can do BACKSPACE, and subsequent
Fortran compilers, also. I believe it is done by the OS
(access methods). I don't know how much overhead there is to doing it.

The BSP macro instruction:

http://publibfp.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr/BOOKS/igg3d500/3.2.2

There are restrictions on its use, but I believe they are
satisfied by Fortran unformatted (VBS) files. The track overflow
features allows non-VBS blocks to span track boundaries, and
is processed by the hardware. VBS allows blocks larger than
a physical disk track to be processed by software using block
and record headers. The system knows which tracks are
allocated to the data set, and which block of the track it is on.

Well, for records within a block it is done by the deblocking
code which BSAM doesn't do, so it would be within the Fortran
library. Across block boundaries the BSP macro described above
would be used.

http://publibfp.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr/BOOKS/dgt1d405/3.2.3.2

The record header includes the block length, and also whether
it is the first, last, or only segment of a logical record.
(I believe that VBS was created for Fortran unformatted files.)

-- glen

[William Clodius]

Richard Maine <***@see.signature> wrote in message news:<***@vega.site>...
> ***@juno.com (E P Chandler) writes:
> <snip>
> One other limitation I recall was that it didn't implement backspace
> of unformatted files. The thing I most recall about that was that the
> documentation claimed that backspace as defined by the standard was
> flawed to the extent of being unimplementable on disk files. Since it
> was implemented and worked fine on the "big computer" compilers, I
> wasn't impressed by the claim that it was unimplementable. No, they
> weren't referring to the subtlties of backspace after hitting an
> end-of-file. They just hadn't thought of the possibility of putting
> record-length trailers.
> <snip>
Or of keeping a linked list of record-lengths as they are acquired,
either in RAM, or in compiler dependent temporary files on disk, or
post-pending the record lengths to the file (I believe Giles mentioned
that once), or (for some operating systems) associating an "invisible"
descriptor file, or simply being too lazy to think.

[E P Chandler]

Richard Maine <***@see.signature> wrote in message news:<***@vega.site>...
> ***@juno.com (E P Chandler) writes:
>
> > Apple Fortran was expensive,
>
> The whole computer was expensive. :-( I had over $6000 in my Apple 2e
> (just for hardware). I big chunk of that was the pair of 8" floppy
> drives and the controller and case for them; that cost me $2k, but wow
> did those floppies hold a lot - a whole meg. With the sturdy case,
> hulky power supply, and the 2 drives, the external floppy box was 75
> pounds.
>
> > came on copy protected disks, had no
> > double precision, and integers were limited (by Pascal's MAXINT) to
> > -32767..32767, but the software *did* run on a system smaller than a
> > mainframe.
>
> I'd forgotten about the copy-protected disks, but yes, that was an
> annoyance. I think I cracked it to make backups (as you say, it
> was expensive, and floppies are fragile), but I forget the details.
>

The annoyance went beyond not being able to create backup disks. The
compiler file had two non standard disk sectors. After reading these
raw sectors in and writing them back out as standard disk sectors, it
was then possible to move files around from their usual positions on
the distribution disks to create a practical working system. Perhaps
the software vendor should have spent more time implementing language
features rather than instituting copy protection that actually
interfered with the legitimate user of the product.

[Kevin G. Rhoads]

>In my quick skim of the above site, I notice that it says that the
>executable for the first Dos version (which was later than the
>Apple one) was about 27k in size.. Those who have just been posting
>sizes for "Hello, world." might be amused by that comparison.

IIRC Digital managed to squeeze Fortran into an 8k PDP-8, but
I don't know how many compiler passes were used.

[keith bierman]

Kevin G. Rhoads wrote:
> All compiled with default options, mostly linked with MS Overlay Linker v3.69
29,664 hellopr2.exe IBM Professional Fortran v2
> 32,900 hellorm3.exe RyanMcfarland Fortran v3
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> program hello
> write (*,7000) ' Hello world.'
> stop ' Bye.'
> 7000 format(A)
> end

chiba:/home/khb>f90 -V bork.f
f90: Forte Developer 7 Fortran 95 7.0 2002/03/09 Solaris/SPARC)
chiba:/home/khb>ls -l a.out
-rwxrwxr-x 1 khb staff 6.2K Nov 16 11:36 a.out*

[bv]

"***@aol.com" wrote:
>
> I can't help asking -- why is DOS still an important platform for some people?
> Could you please enlighten me?

Say, you'd like to transfer dozens of ".inc" files to a cool and
memorable location, you know,

>cp *.inc e:\sack

Now, *count* all your point & clicks, and there's your enlightenment
moment.

[Richard Maine]

bv <***@Xsdynamix.com> writes:

> "***@aol.com" wrote:
>>
>> why is DOS still an important platform for some people?
>
> Say, you'd like to transfer dozens of ".inc" files to a cool and
> memorable location, you know,
>
> >cp *.inc e:\sack
>
> Now, *count* all your point & clicks, and there's your enlightenment
> moment.

Of course...

1. Since all versions of Windows to date still do include a command
line option, this reply doesn't seem particularly relevant to the
question. I'm quite confident that a lot of the readers here
(though admittedly not all) can appreciate the benefits of at
least having the option of using a command line, but that doesn't
seem very relevant to what was asked.

2. I didn't recall that DOS had adopted the cryptic Unix command
names. Though perhaps you were meaning to explain why Unix
is still important to some people. Considering point 1, I
suppose it would be about as relevant to the question. :-)

--
Richard Maine
email: my last name at domain
domain: summertriangle dot net

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

Richard Maine wrote:

(snip)

> 2. I didn't recall that DOS had adopted the cryptic Unix command
> names. Though perhaps you were meaning to explain why Unix
> is still important to some people. Considering point 1, I
> suppose it would be about as relevant to the question. :-)

The windows resource kits for various versions of
windows include some of them. I don't remember that cp
is one, though.

-- glen

[Aleph Mobius]

"***@aol.com" <***@127.0.0.1:7501> wrote in message
> I can't help asking -- why is DOS still an important platform for some people?
> Could you please enlighten me?

I agree that it is old and outdated. The only reason I still use DOS
is because I carry an HP-100LX around from time to time. This is what
I want the FORTRAN compiler for. It doesn't really replace a laptop
but it really does a lot for me. Here is a short description if you
are curious: http://www.rskey.org/detail.asp?manufacturer=Hewlett-Packard&model=HP-100LX.

[Richard E Maine]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[Kevin G. Rhoads]

>> I am surprised that companies seem unwilling to sell old versions if
>> only on a "no support" basis.
>
>I'm not a compiler vendor and certainly can't say anything definitive,
>but...
>
>I've often been involved in giving out programs on a "no support"
>basis.
<much snippage>

I believe you.

On the other hand, Borland has their "Borland COmmunity Museum"
where you can download old C, C++ and Pascal compilers. Similarly,
Watcom was transitioned to OpenWatcom which is freely downloadable.

BUT for both of these there are on-line forums (? fora?) where
volunteers will provide help. Perhaps that keeps those who must
ask questions (whose answers they could have found in the manuals)
somewhat at bay ...

Oh well.

[m***@skyway.usask.ca]

In a previous article, bv <***@Xsdynamix.com> wrote:
>"***@aol.com" wrote:
>>
>> I can't help asking -- why is DOS still an important platform for some people?
>> Could you please enlighten me?
>
>Say, you'd like to transfer dozens of ".inc" files to a cool and
>memorable location, you know,
>
> >cp *.inc e:\sack
>
>Now, *count* all your point & clicks, and there's your enlightenment
>moment.
>

or if you want to run a program on a set of input files

x.bat =
prog.exe < i1.inp
prog.exe < i2.inp
prog.exe < i3.inp

In DOS you just have to type x

Chris

[Herman D. Knoble]

A link to this version of Watfor77 is available at:
http://www.personal.psu.edu/hdk/fortran.html#Windows

Skip Knoble

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 19:52:11 +0000, "Kevin G. Rhoads" <***@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

-|Old version of WatFor77 is available on-line for download (don't have
-|the URL off hand, you can ask on the openwatcom fortran NG) This is
-|NOT OpenWatcom, but a predecessor -- appears to compile to some interpreted
-|code.


Herman D. (Skip) Knoble, Research Associate
(a computing professional for 38 years)
Email: SkipKnobleLESS at SPAMpsu dot edu
Web: http://www.personal.psu.edu/hdk
Penn State Information Technology Services
Academic Services and Emerging Technologies
Graduate Education and Research Services
Penn State University
214C Computer Building
University Park, PA 16802-21013
Phone:[phone] Fax:[phone]

[m***@skyway.usask.ca]

In a previous article, Paul Van Delst <***@noaa.gov> wrote:
>Kevin G. Rhoads wrote:
>> All compiled with default options, mostly linked with MS Overlay Linker v3.69
>> (except MS 4.1, 5.00, 5.10, and the three 32 bit EXEs)
>>
>> 35,116 hello_i1.exe IBM Personal FORTRAN v1.0
>> 21,506 hello_i2.exe IBM Personal FORTRAN v2.0
>> 23,592 hellom32.exe MS Fortran v3.20
>> 28,646 hello330.exe MS Fortran v3.30
>> 28,630 hello331.exe MS Fortran v3.31
>> 17,469 hellom41.exe MS Fortran v4.1
>> 18,327 hellom50.exe MS Fortran v5.00
>> 20,867 hellom51.exe MS Fortran v5.10
>> 31,187 hello_lp.exe Lahey Personal Fortran
>> 23,058 hello_l4.exe Lahey F77L v4.0
>> 101,888 hellofp4.exe MS Fortran Powerstation v4
>> 303,312 hellodf5.exe Digital Visual Fortran 5.1d
>> 327,032 hellodf6.exe Compaq Visual Fortran 6.1
>> 28,001 hellopr1.exe IBM Professional Fortran v1
>> 29,664 hellopr2.exe IBM Professional Fortran v2
>> 32,900 hellorm3.exe RyanMcfarland Fortran v3
>> -------------------------------------------------
>>
>> program hello
>> write (*,7000) ' Hello world.'
>> stop ' Bye.'
>> 7000 format(A)
>> end
>
>What the hell, the sun streaming through the window is making me sleepy......
>
>lnx:scratch : pgf90 hello.f90
>lnx:scratch : dir a.out
>-rwxr-xr-x 1 130K Nov 9 15:22 a.out*
>lnx:scratch : ifort hello.f90
>lnx:scratch : dir a.out
>-rwxr-xr-x 1 409K Nov 9 15:22 a.out*
>lnx:scratch : lf95 hello.f90
>Encountered 0 errors, 0 warnings in file hello.f90.
>lnx:scratch : dir a.out
>-rwxr-xr-x 1 13K Nov 9 15:23 a.out*
>
>409K for ifort! Wow.
>
>cheers,
>
>paulv
>
>--
>Paul van Delst
>CIMSS @ NOAA/NCEP/EMC

WATCOM 10.9 - I get 65536 for windows char. mode executible
and 74834 for 16 bit dos target ..and 97150 for 32 bit dos
(dos4gw extender)

Chris