Next release 100% compatibility

[dave_frank]

Steve,
Will you confirm that next release will keep ALL syntax options currently supported?

[Steven_L_Intel1]

Yup...

Steve

[gfthomas8]

>
> Just a note: The NAG library as sold by NAG
> has no executable redistribution rights and it is
> protected using FlexLM. For the developer who wants
> to
> distribute his applications, this is a serious
> restriction.
>

Jean:

Thanks, you're right. Ah well, there's always IMSL. With luck it won't require an IPO to bankroll.

Ciao,
Gerry T.

[durisinm]

We won't be bundling the Microsoft IDE (we could not get MS to agree to this), but the pricing will be such that it shouldn't cost any more overall. Visual C++.NET Standard is all you need, and this is routinely available for about $80 "street". We expect resellers to offer this to customers who don't already have it, but more than half of CVF customers also use Visual C++, so for them, their costs will go down.

I assume that buying C#.NET would get me the VS IDE just as well as buying VC++.NET, correct? What would be the pros and cons of using C# with Intel Visual Fortran versus C++ for mixed language programming? I believe that C# produces managed code in the .NET framework while VC++ produces unmanaged code. Anything else to consider besides having to learn C#? Is there anything intrinsically harder about mixing C# with Fortran versus C++?

Mike

[Steven_L_Intel1]

Re: VC#

It's not just the IDE, it's the linker (and related tools) and VC++ libraries that are needed. I have no idea if VC# provides these.

Someone else posted in this forum a worked example of using C# with CVF. You have to go the DLL interface route, rather than just linking objects together, but it can be made to work. I don't know about mixed-language debugging, though.

Steve

[Intel_C_Intel]

WRT NAG, you can, in the UK at least, and by arrangement, get a copy of NAG without the license management. You still have to pay for the developer license and a runtime license fee based on the routines you use, subject to a ceiling cost of 40% of the development license fee.

(NAG make a distinction between 'internal' and 'external' runtime licenses, internal ones are cheaper!)

[durisinm]

It's not just the IDE, it's the linker (and related tools) and VC++ libraries that are needed. I have no idea if VC# provides these.

Hmmm, this is getting more interesting. Steve, it appears that you're fairly certain that VC++.NET has the linker and associated libraries that will be compatible with Intel Visual Fortran, and it's possible that other languages like C#.NET may not. I had the impression that any .NET language--VB.NET, for instance--would give me the VS.NET IDE that I could use with VF.

Does anyone out there know enough about .NET to provide some clarifying explanation?

I apologize for dragging this particular topic out, but I'm trying to educate myself so that when Intel Visual Fortran comes out I'll have all the proper pieces in place to begin using it.

Mike

[Steven_L_Intel1]

The IDE is perhaps the least interesting part of it...

I am fairly certain that VB.NET will NOT be adequate, and suspect the C# may not be either. But this is clearly something we'll look at over the next few months.

You should assume that VC++.NET, either by itself or as part of VS.NET, is a prerequisite.

Steve

[gfthomas8]

> I am fairly certain that VB.NET will NOT be adequate,
> and suspect the C# may not be either. But this is
> clearly something we'll look at over the next few
> months.
>

This is correct.

> You should assume that VC++.NET, either by itself or
> as part of VS.NET, is a prerequisite.

If you don't have .NET yet, hold off until .NET 2003 appears (IMO this ought to be a SP for .NET v1, aka .NET 2002, but greed won) then go for the full catastrophe: VC++,C#,VB, and the proselytizing J#.

Ciao,
Gerry T.

[pcurtis]

I am very disappointed with the indicated trend for IVF. CVF promised and delivered a package which included a complete IDE, as well as the ability to create Win32 apps written entirely in Fortran. It appears that IVF has given up on this promise, and now intends to downgrade their product into a minor footnote to NET, rather than retain or enhance Fortran as a full-featured environment for developing stand-alone (Win32) apps.

[Steven_L_Intel1]

We'd like to be able to continue to offer an integrated package, really we would. If we stick with the Microsoft IDE, as the majority of our customers seem to want us to, Microsoft gives us no choice in the matter.

We are looking at other options (an additional IDE choice) for the future, though the dependence on MS libraries and tools is still a sticking point. We can probably work that one out, though.

Steve

[Steven_L_Intel1]

By the way, I want to caution you that anything I say about what will or will not be in future products is not to be taken as a commitment. I am answering these questions honestly based on my understanding of the situation, but things can change - especially when lawyers get involved! Take my responses as an indication of where we want to go, not as a "promise".

Steve

[Intel_C_Intel]

For an ide Codewright.
Editor been used in a number of ide's

Just been bought by Borland
was sold by starbase.

Very easy to customise.
Quite similar to the vs.net ide.
The editor is a lot more powerful.
Very easy to setup version control interface.
Has a synchronisation feature with visual studio and studio.net ides as well as with delphi.

Can handle any language from ada to vhdl etc

Already has built in tool to
call nmake or make for c or c++.

Has a number of builtin key mades including brief, epsilon, vim and cua.

posted 2 screenshots to one of my web sites
1st is of codewright with a vhdl file
http://www.alxx.net/1.png
2nd fortran file
http://www.alxx.net/2.png

Download the demo from borland to have a look
http://www.codewright.com/
http://www.codewright.com/download/
http://www.codewright.com/defaultcw1.asp
http://www.codewright.com/cwnet/default.asp

They even offer a var/oem edition
http://www.codewright.com/varoem

Have handy downloadable addons
http://www.codewright.com/support/addfiles.asp?ID=500

Personally I would much prefer codewright to
the crappy visual studio / dot net ides,
they are to limiting.

Codewright you can customise to how you want it.

Only thing you guys need to add is
a r.a.d gui builder.

Currently it is a windows only product
but Borland may have a linux version
built using kylix.



You guys had a look at what salford did
with ftn95 and ftn95.net yet?
Has a fairly basic ide (Plato) as well as can use
visual studio ide.
Not bad but codewright would be a lot lot better.

Alex

[Intel_C_Intel]

Those links for the screenshots don't seem to be working
so tried attaching them
but this forum wouldn't allow png attachments.
(is that 100KB total or each file?)

These should work(who knows with geocities)
http://www.geocities.com/alxx_9672/1.png
http://www.geocities.com/alxx_9672/2.png

just incase these definitely work
http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~alxx/1.png
http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~alxx/2.png

[glshome]

This is completely unacceptable. This will cause me to rethink my continuing committment to CVF/IVF.
Most likely, I will stick with CVF 6 for an extended period, support or no, updates or no. I do not accept the requirement to separately purchase VC++ in order to get a fully "integrated" and usable product. In my opinion, you cannot in good faith use the term "visual fortran", if you do not provide at least the CVF 6 level of integration right out of the box.

[gfthomas8]

Will there be an update to CVF, including the Compaq Array Visualizer, before the release of IVF?

Ciao,
Gerry T.

[durisinm]

I'm going to further stretch the bounds of the original post that started all this discussion, but here goes.

I took a quick look at the site for Salford Fortran because of its claims to be completely integrated with .NET. It appears that Salford gets around the issue of using the VS.NET IDE by providing its own IDE, Plato. I get the impression that Intel wants to stick with the Microsoft IDE rather than create a new one. My guess is that bundling a separate IDE with Intel Visual Fortran would probably raise the price of the product. Any comments?

Salford Fortran puts out MS intermediate language (IL) that will be processed by .NET's just-in-time compiler (if I understand the information on the Salford site correctly). I believe that Visual Fortran will still be putting out Intel CPU commands. Any comments from Intel about the long-term strategy on this issue? Are all compiler producers for the Windows OS feeling pressure to convert to IL? This may have already been covered in this forum a while back.

Mike

[glshome]

I think it is required to output MSIL in order to be considered to be a .net compiler (.NET = MSIL).
MSIL is required for (possibly cross-platform) "portability". I hope that compilers offer the
option of either MSIL (for portability) or "native" (for performance, etc.).

[Steven_L_Intel1]

I do not want to get into a drawn-out discussion of product futures, but I'll say this:

1. Some of our Linux users are asking us to provide an IDE. We're looking at at least one option that would also offer Windows support. One thing we're planning for the Intel Visual Fortran product is to introduce on Windows our idb command-line debugger (DECladebug in a new incarnation) currently included with the Linux compiler. This removes the last real dependence on the MS IDE. I do not want to mention names of toolsets we are looking at, and you wouldn't see anything come of it this year.

We are aware that many of our Windows users don't use the MS IDE and don't want to use it - and with the wrench VS.NET throws in the works, I find this more understandable. You should find that the VS.NET integration is much improved in the combined release, but it can't overcome basic obstacles Microsoft has introduced. Our IDE integration team has been working VERY hard, and the results should be very worthwhile for those who do use the MS IDE. (I've sampled other vendors' MS IDE "integration" and found it lacking even compared to Intel Fortran 7.1...)

2. Microsoft is certainly encouraging us to generate MSIL. We believe that our core market is more interested in high performance and we are focusing on delivering that with compiled code. Might we offer MSIL as an additional code form in the future? Perhaps. Do you really want this? Management at Intel seems to think that C++ users may want it but not Fortran users.

We do intend to offer "wizard" tools to facilitate making .NET components available to Intel Fortran apps and to make Intel Fortran code available to the .NET environment - along the lines of the CVF COM support.

Once we get the "combined" products out the door and have a chance to catch our breath for the first time in two years, we'll certainly be thinking about what's next. As always, your interest and suggestions are very much appreciated.

Steve

[glshome]

Obviously I'm confused. The whole idea of .NET is to produce "platform independent executables". I have a large database application that I was hoping to one day be able to improve access from Sun workstations via .NET/MSIL. At the same time, I have many other applications that are simple, calculation intensive, and standalone. So I want both output forms depending on which project type I select. Just "integrating" a native compiler with VS.NET does not a .net compiler make. As to the level of integration achieved, if I have to buy a separate C compiler to get the same capabilities as CVF, that is entirely unacceptable (is that what I read?).

[alxx]

An option to generate msil would be handy in some situations
(especially graphics, windowing etc and increase plotting options(reduce cost of plotting options).

You haven't thought of having a cross platform pro version
with option to generate both linux and windows code ?
That would be very handy.

Only problem would be crossplatform graphics stuff, unless you used a crossplatform gui like wxwindows or similar.
(or use one of the linux dot net / forms ports, unless someone does an official full port but fat chance of that I think(more chance of Apple open sourcing their gui libraries(which ain't going to happen)))

Must say I haven't had any problems with salfords vs.net integration so far. Starting to use that more than CVF.
Also finds more of my bugs than cvf or IF.

[alxx]

Hey glshome, dot net hasn't promised complete platform independence but complete microsoft platform independence.

Ie it doesn't matter which version of windows your using
(either windows 2000 or xp or windows server)as long as you use a supported version.

Same as the java hype but no crossplatform support other than on x86 freebsd and some unofficial linux ports.

Don't think you will ever find an official port for solaris
of dot net (unless you pay a third party big dollars) but you may be able to use one of the linux ports(port of a port).

Mono seems to be progressing well
http://www.go-mono.com/
http://www.gotmono.com/
but is moving to x11 license(no required to share modified source, good and bad points)

according to the go-mono page sparc Interpreter is in progress (no jit at the moment)