SNIP:-

I have met this situation many times.
As an example, a very large Oil Company first wrote its accounting
software n 1961 in Fortran, using integer arithemetic and separate
tracking of cents or pennies, on an IBM 1401 (after using plugboard
hardware). This included payroll.

Later, following IBM advice they took the PL/1 route after first
deviating via Cobol (and RPG and Mark4 !).

Very much later, Cobol, PL/1 and Fortran programmers became hard to
find, so the C and C++ languages were adopted after a look at Ada and
much talk with Borland. Basic was considered and actually used for
quick "stuff". Meanwhile I kept on updating the Fortran compilers and
the BMD and BMDP mathematical packages (which are/were Fortran IV
source code).

Terence wrote:

Well, a main reason is that vendors don't typically provide
cross-compilers for Fortran. I use Fortran for my own data analysis and
GUI tools development. The actual company products are hosted in
embedded processors and the customer dictates various aspects of the
development process, tools, etc. Another stated reason is that "it's
easier to find C programmers than Ada programmers". That applies to
just about any other language suitable for real-time programming,
although one vendor is pushing "real-time" Java.

On 2008-07-10, Gary Scott sbcglobal.net> wrote:

gfortran, as a part of gcc, should work well as a cross-compiler,
also for embedded systems.

On Jul 10, 4:53 pm, Thomas Koenig wrote:

I'm not allowed to even use it for personal tools...let alone formal
products...for legal reasons. I can't even use SQLite which has no
licensing requirements at all (not GPL, not anything).

GaryScott sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Yes, so I've gathered from your previous posts. You must be stuck under
some people with particular bones to pick. I know it isn't all of
Lockheed, as I've worked with plenty of Lockheed folk who used lots of
the kinds of tools you say you aren't allowed to. But I believe you.
When I worked for NASA, I also got stuck with restrictions (not the same
ones, but I see a simillarity in flavor) that I know weren't NASA-wide
ones, but were dictates of local PTB (powers that be) at Dryden. These
dictates were claimed to be handed down from headquarters, but I knew
enough people at other NASA centers to realize that it was only Dryden
that interpreted some of those dictates in those ways, which
coincidentally seemed to match the inclinations of the local powers.

Richard Maine wrote:

There are areas where it is allowed under very restricted circumstances.
If really interested, I can respond personally. Otherwise, suffice it
to say that it has not proved feasible for my applications.

Gary Scott sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"We would rather have you re-invent this wheel, costing the company
several person-(months|years) of effort, instead of investing an hour
of general counsel's time in studying the licensing conditions and come
to the conclusion that they will not restrict us in any way. Oh, that
causes you problems with the profitability of that project? Well, then
that's your problem, mate."

I've seen that attitude also. Fortunately, as a small company you can't
afford that, and the bigger company that acquires you just has to live
with it 8-).

Jan