> AFAIK, there is no officially supported Fortran (or Ada) compiler for z/OS
"mainframe ¬= 'z/OS" > we had to port a Fortran to C transpiler. <https://www.ibm.com/products/fortran-compiler-family>? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [[email protected]] on behalf of David Crayford [[email protected]] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:08 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: ... Re: Top 8 Reasons for using Python instead of REXX for z/OS On 10/1/22 6:13 am, Seymour J Metz wrote: >> he raison d'être of the mainframe is to run applications written in COBOL. > What is FORTRAN, chopped liver? AFAIK, there is no officially supported Fortran (or Ada) compiler for z/OS. When Rocket ported the R programming language to z/OS we had to port a Fortran to C transpiler. Bringing back Fortran is another sweet spot that a z/OS LLVM port will solve. > > > -- > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > ________________________________________ > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [[email protected]] on behalf of > David Crayford [[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, January 7, 2022 11:16 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: ... Re: Top 8 Reasons for using Python instead of REXX for z/OS > > On 8/1/22 1:42 am, Tony Harminc wrote: >> On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 at 11:45, Lionel B. Dyck<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I've been following this thread and one thing that has yet to appear, or I >>> missed it, has to do with 4GL's and the drive, at one point, for languages >>> that were more human oriented - those that could be written more like a >>> normal sentence or phrase, and avoid the technical >>> jargon/gobblygook/syntax. As I recall in the 1980's there were a few but >>> nothing came of them, instead we have languages that have their own syntax, >>> and which require extensive learning but nothing that allows a >>> non-programmer to actually generate a complex business program. >> COBOL was supposed to be that, no? Managers could in theory at least >> read (if not write) a COBOL program and understand what it does, >> because it so (superficially) resembles English. > It's interesting that no language since COBOL has ever tried to emulate > the "english" syntax. It turns out that it was not actually a terribly > good idea. Programmers preferred languages with more concise syntax. > > BTW, I'm not knocking COBOL. I'm a mainframe guy and I'm cognizant to > the fact that the raison d'être of the mainframe is to run applications > written in COBOL. PL/I programmers will disagree but COBOL is king. > > >>> From my experience, REXX has many of the 4GL goals as the syntax isn't >>> overly complex and is something a non-programmer can comprehend rather >>> easily. As has been previously mentioned in this thread, REXX can be more >>> readily learned and used than the majority of the current languages. It >>> isn't perfect but it works very well. >> Indeed. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
