From: Danny@hyperspace.vogon.gov   
      
   Lynn McGuire wrote:   
   > 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   
   >   
      
   My exposure to Univac started in 1979 on the 1106 and we were using   
   Ascii Fortran - @ftn - there.  @for was still around but was considered   
   obsolete.  It was a similar story with Cobol, we used Ascii Cobol -   
   @acob - rather than the older Fieldata equivalents.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)