On 8/8/2015 5:47 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: > On 08/08/2015 12:13 PM, Jay Jaeger wrote: >> I have always felt that the language name is SNOBOL, with multiple >> versions, kind of like FORTRAN II (which is what the 1410 had), >> FORTRAN IV, FORTRAN V, etc., but Griswold seems to think otherwise. >> ;) > > I think the test would be "Can language x+1 run, without substantial > modification, programs written in language x?" If the answer is "no", > then languages x and x+1 are separate languages, and not compatible > dialects of the same language. > > So FORTRAN IV would be a compatible dialect of FORTRAN II (mostly at any > rate, FII vendors had a nasty habit of adding their own features > willy-nilly, as did FIV). I think Codasyl was first to clamp down on > "the default is the standard as we say it is", then FORTRAN followed. >
Actually, with FORTRAN II to IV: not. I spent quite a lot of time translating FORTRAN stuff back in the day. COMMON blocks were always handled differently, IO Formats differed, binary IO differed, etc. etc. > However, I'd submit that F95 is a separate language, as it can't run > FIV, F66 or F77 programs without modification as it doesn't understand > ASSIGN-ed GOTOs as well as H-type (Hollerith) FORMAT specs. > > --Chuck >
