On 2022-03-10 7:36 a.m., Quadibloc wrote:
> On Thursday, March 10, 2022 at 12:45:45 AM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>> I do know this, many of the socalled experts think that the USA will
>> park all of the carriers before 2030 due to our inability to run a
>> budget without a two trillion dollar deficit. They think that we will
>> sacrifice the DOD to pay for Social Security and Medicare. So, we will
>> not be able to project any power beyond our shores.
>
> The United States is perfectly capable of having a balanced budget
> while keeping Social Security and other social programs. It is only political
> obstructionists who make it difficult to raise taxes to the level required to
> cover government spending.
>
> Of course, the U.S. defense budget should not be paid for by U.S. taxpayers.
> It is countries like Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and China that have made it
> necessary to _have_ one, so clearly the U.S. is owed quite a bit of money by
> those countries.

Only idiots expect their enemies to pay for their military.

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:

> I do know that a lot of older people just died in the USA from the Koof.
> I wonder if that will affect our Social Security and Medicare expenses ?

I just had that answered a few months ago. The median age of
peopole dying of Corona in Germany was given as 82, so it will
lessen the burden on the social security system here.

The person giving the talk also said this was sounding cold, but
that is how actuaries work.

On Friday, 11 March 2022 at 07:29:25 UTC, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> schrieb:
> > I do know that a lot of older people just died in the USA from the Koof.
> > I wonder if that will affect our Social Security and Medicare expenses ?
> I just had that answered a few months ago. The median age of
> peopole dying of Corona in Germany was given as 82, so it will
> lessen the burden on the social security system here.

....in a way that making half of citizens at random, vanish, would not.
(Because /that/ would remove 50 percent of social security claimers
but also remove 50 percent of taxpayers.)

I said "citizens" but not everyone in Germany, and not
every taxpayer, is a citizen. So, residents? Population?
People? All not ideal words, for various reasons.

> The person giving the talk also said this was sounding cold, but
> that is how actuaries work.

It's temporary in the sense that people will get old again -
except that COVID-19 hasn't stopped killing people;
still mostly older people, I expect.

Many lives can be saved with vaccination and hospital
treatment - but that costs money too. (Therefore, does
not apply in the United States.)

On Thursday, March 10, 2022 at 11:38:54 PM UTC-7, David Johnston wrote:

> Only idiots expect their enemies to pay for their military.

I realize there are practical obstacles.

The first is that you have to _defeat_ the enemy first.

And if the U.S. had German, Italian, and Japanese taxpayers paying
for the cost of U.S. defence during the Cold War, this would have
probably complicated the effort to get the people in those countries
to discard old ways of thinking, and love democracy.

While the people of a country under a dictatorship are not really
culpable for their tyrant's misdeeds, though, it does seem more just
for aggressor nations to bear the costs of their aggressions rather than
their victims.

John Savard

On Friday, March 11, 2022 at 11:06:14 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Thursday, March 10, 2022 at 11:38:54 PM UTC-7, David Johnston wrote:
>
> > Only idiots expect their enemies to pay for their military.
> I realize there are practical obstacles.
>
> The first is that you have to _defeat_ the enemy first.
>
> And if the U.S. had German, Italian, and Japanese taxpayers paying
> for the cost of U.S. defence during the Cold War, this would have
> probably complicated the effort to get the people in those countries
> to discard old ways of thinking, and love democracy.
>
> While the people of a country under a dictatorship are not really
> culpable for their tyrant's misdeeds, though, it does seem more just
> for aggressor nations to bear the costs of their aggressions rather than
> their victims.

And, based on the same principle, similarly the police, the jails, and
the criminal justice system should all be paid for by fines and the
proceeds of convict labor, not money taken from law-abiding
citizens through taxation.

But in practice, this won't work. A lot of the people who steal things
don't have much money of their own earned through honest labor,
either because they were too busy stealing, or it was being poor in
the first place that tempted them to steal. Even if we made imprisonment
unreasonably harsh, it wouldn't be profitable enough.

John Savard

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:887480ea-23a9-483a-8416-e13686cdecf6n@googlegroups.com:

> On Thursday, March 10, 2022 at 3:23:33 PM UTC-7, Jibini Kula
> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:t0dse9$e1t$3...@dont-email.me:
>> > On 3/10/2022 11:26 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>> > wrote:
>
>> >> They broke when Queen Hillary was denied her god-given right
>> >> to govern over us lesser subraces.
>
>> > She may run again in 2024.
>
>> We can only hope. That will guarantee Trump a win.
>
> Only if she wins in the primaries.
>
If we believe the conspiracy theories, she'll be the only one left
alive still running.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On 2022-03-11, Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>Many so-called "experts" cannot conceive of the concept of
>>"Republicans win".
>
> Actually, it is a string of Republican budgets that they are probably
> relying on.
>
> Like the $1T they charged on the National Credit Card so they could
> give tax breaks to their rich buddies.

As I'm sure you are well aware, the tax act was designed so the rich
would be paying a higher percentage of the total income tax then they
did previously. As it has worked out, they are actually paying an
even higher percentage than was originally predicted. But that's not
a sound bite that's attractive to you.

(What happens in 4-5 years is still to be determined - left unchanged
the rich would indeed get a big break then. But nobody expects that.)

Chris

On Friday, March 11, 2022 at 9:01:41 PM UTC-7, Chris Buckley wrote:
> On 2022-03-11, Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >>Many so-called "experts" cannot conceive of the concept of
> >>"Republicans win".
> >
> > Actually, it is a string of Republican budgets that they are probably
> > relying on.
> >
> > Like the $1T they charged on the National Credit Card so they could
> > give tax breaks to their rich buddies.

> As I'm sure you are well aware, the tax act was designed so the rich
> would be paying a higher percentage of the total income tax then they
> did previously. As it has worked out, they are actually paying an
> even higher percentage than was originally predicted. But that's not
> a sound bite that's attractive to you.
>
> (What happens in 4-5 years is still to be determined - left unchanged
> the rich would indeed get a big break then. But nobody expects that.)

Trump actually did tax the rich? Well, I don't know the facts, so I
can't say you're wrong. But it's so easy to lump things together.

Thus, people might be thinking of how the national debt rose under
Reagan and G. W. Bush, but not so much under Clinton and Obama.

Or they might be thinking of how the rich were paying more taxes back
in the 1960s under J. F. K., and _this_ level hasn't been reached yet.

John Savard

On 2022-03-11 8:01 p.m., Chris Buckley wrote:
> On 2022-03-11, Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>> Many so-called "experts" cannot conceive of the concept of
>>> "Republicans win".
>>
>> Actually, it is a string of Republican budgets that they are probably
>> relying on.
>>
>> Like the $1T they charged on the National Credit Card so they could
>> give tax breaks to their rich buddies.
>
> As I'm sure you are well aware, the tax act was designed so the rich
> would be paying a higher percentage of the total income tax then they
> did previously. As it has worked out, they are actually paying an
> even higher percentage than was originally predicted. But that's not
> a sound bite that's attractive to you.
>
> (What happens in 4-5 years is still to be determined - left unchanged
> the rich would indeed get a big break then. But nobody expects that.)
>
> Chris

You're claiming that Trump's tax changes increased the taxes on the rich?

Bullshit.

On Friday, March 11, 2022 at 11:21:00 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:

[snip]

> Or they might be thinking of how the rich were paying more taxes back
> in the 1960s under J. F. K., and _this_ level hasn't been reached yet.
>
>

[quote]

{Julian} Castro seems to long for the return to 90 percent tax rates. Does he know
any of the history here? It was President John F. Kennedy who called for a 30 percent
across-the-board reduction in tax rates that ended the tyranny of a government that
could take 90 cents in taxes out of a dollar of earnings. Kennedy argued correctly that
the lower tax rates would "raise revenues in the long run." He was right; the lower tax
rates spurred a burst of prosperity after he was tragically assassinated.

[/quote] - Stephen Moore | 14 Jan 2019

"What JFK Could Teach Modern Democrats About Taxing the Rich"

https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/what-jfk-could-teach-modern-democrats-about-taxing-the-rich

That 90% rate was only on the dollars in the highest bracket.
It was never the effective tax rate for all dollars earned.

https://taxfoundation.org/historical-income-tax-rates-brackets/

--
Kevin R

On Saturday, March 12, 2022 at 12:49:46 AM UTC-7, Kevrob wrote:

> That 90% rate was only on the dollars in the highest bracket.
> It was never the effective tax rate for all dollars earned.
>
> https://taxfoundation.org/historical-income-tax-rates-brackets/

Surely even a more sensible 60% maximum marginal tax rate is more than
what the U.S. has now?

John Savard

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:55ef8abc-3d29-4447-9b84-e94987e663f7n@googlegroups.com:

> Well, I don't know the facts,

You should have that tattoed on your forehead.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:6thp2hp9rqtnf86lqccqedsr3tf7b5bkpo@4ax.com:

> On 12 Mar 2022 04:01:35 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 2022-03-11, Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>>>Many so-called "experts" cannot conceive of the concept of
>>>>"Republicans win".
>>>
>>> Actually, it is a string of Republican budgets that they are
>>> probably relying on.
>>>
>>> Like the $1T they charged on the National Credit Card so they
>>> could give tax breaks to their rich buddies.
>>
>>As I'm sure you are well aware, the tax act was designed so the
>>rich would be paying a higher percentage of the total income tax
>>then they did previously. As it has worked out, they are
>>actually paying an even higher percentage than was originally
>>predicted. But that's not a sound bite that's attractive to
>>you.
>
> No, I am not aware of that. Nor am I now.
>
> Keep in mind that /corporate taxes/ were also reduced.
>
>>(What happens in 4-5 years is still to be determined - left
>>unchanged the rich would indeed get a big break then. But
>>nobody expects that.)
>
> Actually, Republicans /do/ expect that. And will squeal like
> stuck pigs if it doesn't happen.
>
> There was a time when Republicans felt that, having taken the
> time and trouble to pass tax laws, those laws should be
> followed, even by 1%-ers.
>
> But those days are long past.

Yeah, they've gottne more and more like the Democrats, who have
*never* felt that laws should apply to them in the first place.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Thursday, March 10, 2022 at 5:00:46 PM UTC-5, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 3/10/2022 11:26 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> > J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > news:njdk2hdupos5se1md...@4ax.com:
> >
> >> On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 01:45:38 -0600, Lynn McGuire
> >> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 3/9/2022 9:49 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> >>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>> news:t08vsj$t1s$4...@dont-email.me:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 3/8/2022 10:46 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 15:02:02 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
> >>>>>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 9:43:24 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And, since Trump is a Putin sock puppet, those calling
> >>>>>>>> Putin "fascist" are saying the Republican Party is /still/
> >>>>>>>> the Party of Hitler. But I am not.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Putin's the Hitler. Trump is only the Mussolini. Or maybe
> >>>>>>> even the Franco.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Well, Trump was as funny as Mussolini. That is, both were
> >>>>>> jokes as leaders go.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Trump as Franco - that would be a plus. That would mean
> >>>>>>> that while Xi and Putin were carving up the world, the U.S.
> >>>>>>> would actually decline to invade Canada.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dude, you really have a bad case of TDS. Have you thought
> >>>>> about taking anything for it ?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Perhaps it's being caused by what he's taking. Maybe something
> >>>> like LSD, or some sort of muchroom.
> >>>
> >>> I do know this, many of the socalled experts think that the USA
> >>> will park all of the carriers before 2030 due to our inability
> >>> to run a budget without a two trillion dollar deficit. They
> >>> think that we will sacrifice the DOD to pay for Social Security
> >>> and Medicare. So, we will not be able to project any power
> >>> beyond our shores.
> >>
> >> Many so-called "experts" cannot conceive of the concept of
> >> "Republicans win".
> >>
> > They broke when Queen Hillary was denied her god-given right to
> > govern over us lesser subraces.
> She may run again in 2024.

Well, fantasy is appropriate for this group, after all.

William Hyde

On Thursday, March 10, 2022 at 2:54:34 AM UTC-5, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 3/10/2022 12:57 AM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> > Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > news:t0bioi$o0n$1...@dont-email.me:
> >
> >> On 3/9/2022 4:22 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> >>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>> news:t0at76$cgt$1...@dont-email.me:
> >>>
> >>>> On 3/9/2022 10:00 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> >>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
> >>>>> news:8a06a2a8-7424-4928...@googlegroups.com:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> 1) Although not actively engaged in hostilities, *we are
> >>>>>> at war*. That is the first thing to remember.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Ukraine is at war. The US and Canada are not.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You've really lost yoru shit, son. You need help. Seriously.
> >>>>
> >>>> John wants the USA to be what we are continuously accused of
> >>>> being, the world's policeman.
> >>>
> >>> What he really wants is a) to nuke brown people, and b) girls
> >>> who will let him touch their boobies without screaming in
> >>> terror. Sadly, for him, neither is likely to ever happen.
> >>
> >> Wow, that is sad. My maternal grandmother was light brown with
> >> very black eyes.
> >>
> > You weren't aware of that already?
> Not really.

Very nice troll. One of the best I've seen recently.

William Hyde

On 2022-03-12, Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> On 12 Mar 2022 04:01:35 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2022-03-11, Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>Many so-called "experts" cannot conceive of the concept of
>>>>"Republicans win".
>>>
>>> Actually, it is a string of Republican budgets that they are probably
>>> relying on.
>>>
>>> Like the $1T they charged on the National Credit Card so they could
>>> give tax breaks to their rich buddies.
>>
>>As I'm sure you are well aware, the tax act was designed so the rich
>>would be paying a higher percentage of the total income tax then they
>>did previously. As it has worked out, they are actually paying an
>>even higher percentage than was originally predicted. But that's not
>>a sound bite that's attractive to you.
>
> No, I am not aware of that. Nor am I now.

It's been talked about a couple of times in this group; I thought you
would probably have read it. I found some good CBO projections the
last time that unfortunately I can't find now.

The 2019 figures are just out recently and I'll have to retract my
"even higher percentage than was originally predicted". That was true
for 2018, but not for 2019 (the 2019 percentages for the rich are
still higher than 2017 but not by that much.)
https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/who-pays-income-taxes
https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income-tax-data

> Keep in mind that /corporate taxes/ were also reduced.

Do note that the 2021 total receipts for both corporate and personal income
taxes are 20-25% higher than in 2017. (I imagine the percentage paid by the
rich shot through the roof in 2021, but it will be a couple of years before
we find out.)
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2021-10/57476-MBR.pdf

>>(What happens in 4-5 years is still to be determined - left unchanged
>>the rich would indeed get a big break then. But nobody expects that.)
>
> Actually, Republicans /do/ expect that. And will squeal like stuck
> pigs if it doesn't happen.

Please give me a single citation to any Republican politician who, for
instance, is predicting that the standard deduction will be reduced
(about halved) in 2026. (Joint going from around $25,000 to $13,000).

For those of you in another thread talking about the tax rate in the 1960s,
you might note that almost nobody paid the 91% top marginal rate. The
tax code had enormous loopholes back then that gradually got closed (in
exchange for decreasing the top rates.) The top 1% paid less than 13% of
the income taxes back then. That rose to around 20% by 1980 and then
gradually increased to the 40% of today.
https://taxfoundation.org/some-historical-tax-stats/

Chris

On 3/10/2022 3:23 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:t0dsi5$e1t$4@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 3/10/2022 9:47 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:t0carm$osf$1@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>> On 3/10/2022 12:57 AM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:t0bioi$o0n$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/9/2022 4:22 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:t0at76$cgt$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/9/2022 10:00 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:8a06a2a8-7424-4928-995d-cb4e572e8faen@googlegroups.co
>>>>>>>>> m:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1) Although not actively engaged in hostilities, *we are
>>>>>>>>>> at war*. That is the first thing to remember.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ukraine is at war. The US and Canada are not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You've really lost yoru shit, son. You need help.
>>>>>>>>> Seriously.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John wants the USA to be what we are continuously accused
>>>>>>>> of being, the world's policeman.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What he really wants is a) to nuke brown people, and b)
>>>>>>> girls who will let him touch their boobies without
>>>>>>> screaming in terror. Sadly, for him, neither is likely to
>>>>>>> ever happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wow, that is sad. My maternal grandmother was light brown
>>>>>> with very black eyes.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You weren't aware of that already?
>>>>
>>>> Not really.
>>>>
>>> What Usenet have you been reading for the last couple of
>>> decades?
>>
>> I try to ignore the crazies.
>>
> Not a lot of mirrors in your house, then?

I rarely read Quaddies diatribes past the first sentence. I have a day
job or three after all (I have three businesses that are about to do me in).

I sometimes read your responses to Quaddie but it is hard to understand
the reply when you do not read the original. And even when I read his
original diatribe, he jumps all over the freaking place.

Oh well, it does not matter. I will continue to do what I want to do
which is love God, love my wife and family even if some of them are
brown, and read my sf/f books. And read an occasional engineering book
and write some new software.

Lynn

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:

> I will continue to do what I want to do
> which is love God, love my wife and family even if some of them are
> brown, and read my sf/f books. And read an occasional engineering book
> and write some new software.

See you on comp.lang.fortran, then :-)

On 3/13/2022 5:50 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:
>
>> I will continue to do what I want to do
>> which is love God, love my wife and family even if some of them are
>> brown, and read my sf/f books. And read an occasional engineering book
>> and write some new software.
>
> See you on comp.lang.fortran, then :-)

I hang out there almost daily.

And I have written almost a thousand lines of new Fortran code in the
last two weeks. I plan to write more Fortran this week too.

Lynn

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 11:20:44 -0500, Lynn McGuire
><lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 3/13/2022 5:50 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:
>>>
>>>> I will continue to do what I want to do
>>>> which is love God, love my wife and family even if some of them are
>>>> brown, and read my sf/f books. And read an occasional engineering book
>>>> and write some new software.
>>>
>>> See you on comp.lang.fortran, then :-)
>>
>>I hang out there almost daily.
>>
>>And I have written almost a thousand lines of new Fortran code in the
>>last two weeks. I plan to write more Fortran this week too.
>
>Is FORTRAN still being used in the science + engineering world? I
>found it much easier to read than most of the languages that succeeded
>it but in fairness it's been 20 years since I've read source code.

Fortran is not widely used in modern engineering environments.

Modern fortran looks quite different from 1970's fortran.

PROGRAM Parallel_Stored_Hello
USE OMP_LIB

INTEGER :: thread_id

!$OMP PARALLEL PRIVATE(thread_id)

thread_id = OMP_GET_THREAD_NUM()
PRINT *, \u201cHello from process: \u201d, thread_id

!$OMP END PARALLEL

END

On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 11:24:57 AM UTC-6, The Horny Goat wrote:

> Is FORTRAN still being used in the science + engineering world?

Most definitely. Fortran 95 and Fortran 2003 are often used for
programming large parallel supercomputers.

But C or Pascal - or even Python - are used for day-to-day small problems.

John Savard

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> schrieb:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 11:20:44 -0500, Lynn McGuire
><lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 3/13/2022 5:50 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:
>>>
>>>> I will continue to do what I want to do
>>>> which is love God, love my wife and family even if some of them are
>>>> brown, and read my sf/f books. And read an occasional engineering book
>>>> and write some new software.
>>>
>>> See you on comp.lang.fortran, then :-)
>>
>>I hang out there almost daily.
>>
>>And I have written almost a thousand lines of new Fortran code in the
>>last two weeks. I plan to write more Fortran this week too.
>
> Is FORTRAN still being used in the science + engineering world?

Yes. It is usually written Fortran now, since Fortran 90.

> I
> found it much easier to read than most of the languages that succeeded
> it but in fairness it's been 20 years since I've read source code.

#ifdef SHAMELESS_PLUG

It has added a fair number of features since Fortran 77. It now
has (in no particular order) derived types, dynamic memory
allocation (with or without automatic reclamation), modules,
object orientation, generics, array expressions, recursive
functions, C interoperability and whatnot.

And the old code still runs, if it was halfway standard-conformant
when it was written, so it is possible to do a gradual update
of existing code.

If you want to look at what modern Fortran looks like,
you could look at the "programming idioms" web site,
it has quite a few examples of how to do things there.
See https://www.programming-idioms.org/cheatsheet/Fortran .

#endif

On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 11:49:09 AM UTC-6, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> Modern fortran looks quite different from 1970's fortran.
>
> PROGRAM Parallel_Stored_Hello
> USE OMP_LIB
>
> INTEGER :: thread_id
>
> !$OMP PARALLEL PRIVATE(thread_id)
>
> thread_id = OMP_GET_THREAD_NUM()
> PRINT *, \u201cHello from process: \u201d, thread_id
>
> !$OMP END PARALLEL
>
> END

Is that High Performance Fortran, a modified version of
Fortran 90 where some of the important features needed
for parallel programming aren't really part of the language,
so they're added as special comments, with !$ in front?

Since the USE statement was not so preceded, however,
perhaps this mechanism for certain statement forms added
by auxiliary libraries was retained in the later versions of
Fortran.

John Savard

On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 12:07:35 PM UTC-6, Thomas Koenig wrote:

> If you want to look at what modern Fortran looks like,
> you could look at the "programming idioms" web site,
> it has quite a few examples of how to do things there.
> See https://www.programming-idioms.org/cheatsheet/Fortran .

It seems to have some mistakes.

For example, where an example states that it creates
a string variable s, and assigns to it a string of Japanese
kana, in fact it seems the string variable cat is created
and assigned that string value.

The example with an enumerated type for card suits
seems to be the same, with the type being c rather than
suit.

John Savard

On 3/16/2022 12:24 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 11:20:44 -0500, Lynn McGuire
> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/13/2022 5:50 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:
>>>
>>>> I will continue to do what I want to do
>>>> which is love God, love my wife and family even if some of them are
>>>> brown, and read my sf/f books. And read an occasional engineering book
>>>> and write some new software.
>>>
>>> See you on comp.lang.fortran, then :-)
>>
>> I hang out there almost daily.
>>
>> And I have written almost a thousand lines of new Fortran code in the
>> last two weeks. I plan to write more Fortran this week too.
>
> Is FORTRAN still being used in the science + engineering world? I
> found it much easier to read than most of the languages that succeeded
> it but in fairness it's been 20 years since I've read source code.

My software dates back to 1969. I have 850,000 lines of Fortran code
and 500,000 lines of C++ code.

I doubt that any new projects are being written in Fortran. Most new
stuff is written in C and C++.

Lynn