forums.silverfrost.com

[rogerh]

Thanks but I haven't found easy and fortran to coincide much.
Plato catches my syntax errors and tells me what line but why is another matter. Sample code is REALLY needed for novices like me.

Run errors, forget it. The messages tell me nothing.

Clearwin+ will probably do the job from what little I've seen but may be overkill.

Roger

[John-Silver]

maybe if you posted an example of the type of typical plot complexity you'll be trying to generate we could give you a 5-min opinions of if it's feasible with the %pl which Dan mentioned, or whether you should go from basics.
Just post an example of the most complex plot you would be generating (post one from the existing program generates and then if you think you'll need to improve it then do one in Excel for example so we can see what you're looking to achieve). Best approach if you don't want to waste too much time cause as Dan says, there are a few mines out there in 'Simpleplot' to be avoided.

[DanRRight]

[rogerh]

[rogerh]

[DanRRight]

[quote="rogerh"]

[rogerh]

DanRRight;

I agree but doubt it will happen here.

Personally I'd like to see programming in English. There are a couple of attempts such as Pegasus and Wolfram/Alpha but neither are near completion.

Roger

[John-Silver]

Stand by to be bored :O) with my over-long musings.

Interesting point this, because in fact I was just talking about it the other day to my daughter who had a maths question to answer about what they call these days ' algorithms' and there was a sequence of instructions similar to this (yes she's studying in french !):

POUR I de 1 a n
<instruction1>
<instruction1>
Fin de boucle Pour

- Yet another 'syntax' (FOR I FROM x TO y - note, still no DO ! :O) !
She hadn't even been directed to an explanation of the syntax and couldn't understand it as a logical instruction !
i.e. as a knownowt (as we say up north) she couldn't even understand a 'FOR' loop :O)

I said to her it would be better written as ' Loop through the following list of instructions n times (until you see a 'Fin de boucle' '

which I think is an extreme, but very valid explanation to anyone who knows nothing about 'programming' as in her case.

It just illustrates the problem which in our cases is simple, we're using different 'languages' (in this case BASIC and FORTRAN) , note the word is not chosen at random, and to understand both you have to have a semblance of knowledge of both. For a newcomer, or as in this case an oldcomer like Peter, you need at least a dictionary to compare 'words' (instructions). It's nothing different to when you start using CLEARWIN+, which is just another (higher level) language. And remember, the humain brain has a limit which is for 99% of people somewhere between 1 and 2 languages ! (try learning more than one non-native spoken language and you'll know what I mean).
It's a question of knowledge and motivation and I can understand in this case that Roger has a specific case he's trying to implement in FORTRAN for a client which is outside his normal lingo. A bit like him going on holiday to France after a 20 year break of not speaking much, if any, french and struggling ordering croissants at the boulangerie LOL !.

As someone once explained to me: spanish is not difficult at all to learn, there are millions of children in spain who speak it fluently :O) The same applies to all languages.

L-evenmore-OL (or should that be LEMOL :O) ) after seeing that Roger's last comment which he's made while I've been in the middle of writing this !
Of course you main 'plsin' english or rather plain but simple yet completely descriptive english' which is of course a contradiction in terms , not to mention pushing line lengths to the limits resulting in Dan (and the rest of us) having more devilry in the codes ! LOL
Simple is beautiful is the saying, but it's not always understandable, except to computers :O)

PS -
Does 'IF' need to be changed to 'DOIF' or 'IF <> THENDO' :O)
It's all a matter of personal preference and current knowledge and understanding at the end of the day.
i just hope I'm still able to program at 80 like Roger ! Well done that man.

[rogerh]

Hi John;

Along those lines I once wrote a fortran to basic translator which worked pretty well.

I also tried to write the programming in english program which died after the first command. WAY too many possibilities to manage.

Roger

[John-Silver]

Ha-ha-ha ! LOYEML !
Would be the same with a fortran checking program too I guess.
Reading through the posts again you wrote

[rogerh]

John;

No Perl's a language of sorts but where do tadpoles and frogs get mentioned?

Roger

[John-Silver]

in Paul's reference to 'spawning' :O) ribet, ribet
whatever that is.

[rogerh]

[rogerh]

Woops!

Sleep1@ won't work either.

The client wants an interruptable sleep. The idea is to shut down the program yet be able to press a function key to reactivate the keyboard.

Any way to do this?

Roger

[DanRRight]

Decades from now Fortran will write formulas as they look in math books but today when we still need to code them, they look most natural only in Fortran. That what non-programmers (read 99.9% of people who need sometimes to code) appreciate. And this is why Fortran which was the first high level programming language will die as the last programming language. it's simplicity is a key. If you do not like TYPEs - do not use them, all that new additions to Fortran Standard are generally for those who must use programming daily.

Long ago I had comparison of the code written in Clearwin+ vs C++ which is this thread on this forum

http://forums.silverfrost.com/viewtopic.php?t=1429&highlight=trading+quotetracker

The difference was 10x in source size and uncountable in simplicity. Same with all other languages, see references there including VB and VB for Net. The Clrarwin+ is of course not a Fortran, but keeps the same mentality of fortraneers. You can try to compare these things yourself, i just checked, 7 years later they are still there in that link