I see there is no , well, nothing for fortran here. What is so special about it? I hear there are some fortran lovers still alive, but is it dead?

• : I see there is no , well, nothing for fortran here. What is so special about it? I hear there are some fortran lovers still alive, but is it dead?
:
Well, it isn't dead, but it's too old for the "new generation" - I think.

****************

:-) [b][blue]GAASHIUS[/blue][/b] :-)

• : : I see there is no , well, nothing for fortran here. What is so special about it? I hear there are some fortran lovers still alive, but is it dead?
: :
: Well, it isn't dead, but it's too old for the "new generation" - I think.
:
Heh...earlier this year a physicist working on a computing project for his degree showed up in my room (I'm doing a degree too, but computer science) and showed me some FORTRAN code that he'd written and asked why it didn't work... Well, I managed to cobble together a solution with some guesswork. But it seems what keeps Fortran alive is NAG - the numerical analysis group libraries - which is just what physicists modelling stuff want I guess...

Jonathan

###
for(74,117,115,116){\$::a.=chr};((\$_.='qwertyui')&&
(tr/yuiqwert/her anot/))for(\$::b);for(\$::c){\$_.=\$^X;
/(p.{2}l)/;\$_=\$1}\$::b=~/(..)\$/;print("\$::a\$::b \$::c hack\$1.");