From: lynnmcguire5@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/18/2024 5:50 AM, R Daneel Olivaw wrote:   
   > Lynn McGuire wrote:   
   >> On 11/12/2024 4:01 PM, baf wrote:   
   >>> On 11/12/2024 12:43 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> If all of your general purpose subroutines and functions are in   
   >>>>>>> modules, you don't need interfaces for them (one of the   
   >>>>>>> advantages of modules).   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> I have 6,000 subroutines in 5,000 files.  All I did was put   
   >>>>>> interfaces for about 2,600 of the subroutines into a single module.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Lynn   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>> A better alternative would be to put the subroutines in the module   
   >>>>> and USE the module. Then you don't need the interfaces (the   
   >>>>> compiler gets all of the interface information "automagically").   
   >>>>   
   >>>> 850,000 lines of code in a single file ?  That would be a mess.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Lynn   
   >>>>   
   >>> I wasn't suggesting a single module. Partition the subprograms into   
   >>> meaningful subgroups. Also, as was indicated, you can use submodules   
   >>> to avoid cascading compilation issues with a large number of modules.   
   >>   
   >> My father and two other engineer profs started developing the software   
   >> back in 1968 on a Univac 1108.  It had 32K words of data space and 32K   
   >> words of code space.  To build large software, we had to manually   
   >> partition the software ourselves so that it would fit into those 32K   
   >> words of code space.  It was a major pain when somebody would update a   
   >> subroutine and mess up the partition map.   
   >>   
   >> When I personally started working on the software in 1975, it was one   
   >> of my jobs to update the huge partition map on the wall outside my   
   >> bosses office.  I used the big computer sheets and taped them   
   >> together, about a hundred or so of the sheets.   
   >>   
   >> Never again.   
   >>   
   >> Lynn   
   >>   
   >   
   > Were you using @FOR (Fielddata) or @FTN (Ascii)?   
   > Things became much simpler when multiple Ibanks and addresses over 0200   
   > 000 became possible (for @ftn, @for was abandoned at some point).  I   
   > think @ftn also permitted multiple Dbanks but I never used that, the   
   > code generated was - by necessity - horrific.   
      
   It has been 49 years ago, I do not remember.  Too many computers, too   
   many languages.  I have written software in around dozen languages and a   
   dozen platforms now.  Fortran, IBM 370 Assembly, Basic, Pascal, C, HTML,   
   Perl, C++, Smalltalk, bsh, Visual Basic, etc.   
      
   We gave up on the Univac 1108 in 1981 ??? and the CDC 7600 in 1982.  I   
   started working at another company in 1982 when I finished my degree in   
   Mechanical Engineering at TAMU.  I went back to the engineering software   
   company in 1989.   
      
   Lynn   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)