Re: FORTRAN vs. Fortran (was: November 5th is Clang-Day)

From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen_at_missouri.edu>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 07:27:44 -0500
On 11/02/2012 05:21 AM, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> 	Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 17:08:18 +1100
> 	From: "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog_at_freebsd.org>
> 	To: Erich Dollansky <erichfreebsdlist_at_ovitrap.com>
> 	Subject: FORTRAN vs. Fortran (was: November 5th is Clang-Day)
>
> 	On Friday,  2 November 2012 at 12:21:03 +0700, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> 	> Hi,
> 	>
> 	> On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 21:59:17 -0700
> 	> Steve Kargl <sgk_at_troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote:
> 	>>
> 	>> BTW, the name of the language is "Fortran".  It's been "Fortran"
> 	>> for the last 30-something years.
> 	>
> 	> I never realised the name change. It seems that I am not alone with
> 	> this.
>
> 	Nor I.  Looking at the Wikipedia page, I discover that it had been
> 	spelt "Fortran" as early as 1956, and there's even a copy of the 1956
> 	Fortran manual online: http://www.fortran.com/FortranForTheIBM704.pdf
> 	Interesting reading.
>
> come on guys, fortran is not case sensitive...

caNyO usti llputw hitespa cewhere ever you like in for TraN?
Received on Fri Nov 02 2012 - 11:42:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:31 UTC