From: Rune Allnor <>
Newsgroups: comp.soft-sys.matlab
Subject: Re: Error in MIN and MAX
Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 13:22:37 -0700 (PDT)
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <>
References: <htrjji$34i$> <hts20o$vt$> 
	<htt5bg$fli$> <httm7f$14t$> 
	<httojr$f0t$> <> 
	<htujp2$oh0$> <> 
	<hu0abs$62n$> <hu0bht$f6f$> 
	<hu0ego$7go$> <> 
	<hu0t3v$vl6$> <> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: 1275337357 16972 (31 May 2010 20:22:37 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 20:22:37 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info:; posting-host=; 
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; 
	Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR 3.5.21022; 
	.NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe)
Xref: comp.soft-sys.matlab:640987

On 31 Mai, 21:34, Walter Roberson <> wrote:
> Rune Allnor wrote:
> > Sure. I have stated very clearly in other threads what
> > my position on fortran is: Fortran is an obsolete language
> > that, while of significant hoistorical importance, is
> > only interesting for its considerable legacy code base.
> > Youngsters and novices who ask questions here about fortran
> > ought to be made aware of that fact, and not tricked into
> > wasting time and effort on long since obsolete languages.
> You have indicated that you do not know Fortran, and what you do describe of
> it reflects at best the state of Fortran up to 1977 (33 years ago). What
> _have_ you studied in this matter that might give people reason to believe
> that you are competent to judge this matter?

I have compared fortran's role as a programming language
with the steam engine: Of significant historical importance
but obsolete by today. Would you accept such a claim about
steam engines from somebody who does not have hands-on
experience with them?

If 'yes' - on what grounds?

>  > I can only imagine how it might feel to be taught linguistic
>  > subtleties of your native language by a foreigner half your age.
>  > Is *that* what's bothering you?
> One of the aspects of English is that a comma can indicate a pause to catch
> one's breath (mentally or physically), which is the way that dpb used in in
> his sentence. Using the comma that way is not encouraged in written work, but
> it is recognized (especially in connection with transcription of verbal material.)

Do I have to educate *two* native English-speakers on the matter?
Do you comment on my criticism, which from your writings I have no
reason to believe you have read? Or do you catch on to dpb's
misunderstanding of what I criticized him of?

Commas are irrelevant towhat I criticized in dpb's post. *Read* his
post; contemplate the semantics. Selection of words. Phrasings.

Again, I have commented extensively on what I reacted on in a
different post, so I won't repeat it here. All it takes is that
you *read* it.