Talk:Fortran

message: As far as I understood the basic definition of an object oriented language
includes stuff like classes and inheritance. Fortran 2003 can emulate this, by using function
pointers, but it is not part of the language. Therefore it is wrong to write that fortran is object oriented.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.200.55.101 (talk • contribs)  07:57, 18 August 2006.
Even the article you link to says Fortran2003 is OO. Rangek 16:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that you will find inheritance & type-bound procedures defines what Fortran objects can do.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bendel boy (talk • contribs) 08:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: fortran 2003 is not object oriented!!!!

message: I took out all of the tutorials, books, etc. listed in the history section and put them in the external links section to make the page more readable. In addition I think it might be a good idea to add a separate page for the history of fortran for the details and make what's on the page more succinct. 130.215.112.54 22:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: cleaning up the article

message: The section on the history of FORTRAN should be moved to the end of the article or to a separate page. A random reader will probably want to know about the features that fortran has now before he delves into the differences between FORTRAN 66 and FORTRAN 77.
Beg to differ. FORTRAN is an historical artifact and should not be revived or learned by newbies.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.82.33.202 (talk) 11:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much emphasis on history 

message: The textbook section as of 13 Dec 2006 is as follows.
* Chapman, Stephen J. (2003). Fortran 90/95 for Scientists and Engineers, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill. .
* Ellis, T. M. R., Ivor R. Phillips, Thomas M. Lahey (1994). Fortran 90 Programming, 1st ed., Addison Wesley. .
* McCracken, Daniel D. (1961). A Guide to Fortran Programming. Wiley.
* McCracken, Daniel D. (1965). A Guide to Fortran IV Programming. Wiley.
* Metcalf, Michael, John Reid, Malcolm Cohen (2004). Fortran 95/2003 Explained. Oxford University Press.
* Nyhoff, Larry, Sanford Leestma (1995). FORTRAN 77 for Engineers and Scientists with an Introduction to Fortran 90, 4th ed., Prentice Hall. .
This is an odd mixture of ancient FORTRAN, Fortran 90, and Fortran 2003 textbooks. I think the 1960s textbooks should be removed, since they would not be useful for someone learning Fortran today.
: I also did a double-take when, reading the article a few minutes ago, I saw my old Fortran textbook from University (McCracken's Fortran IV) listed there.  However these are references to the development of the language, and that's the subject of this article.  The article isn't really intended solely to teach programmers how to program in Fortran. I think McCracken's books are excellent examples of textbooks on Fortran during its most popular period, before it was eclipsed by Pascal and C.  The Fortran IV book was still in use well into the 1970s.  --Tony Sidaway 08:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Textbooks 

message: I have removed the section named "Criticisms and rebuttals."  In its present form it amounts to the exchange of advocacy and counter-advocacy, without any attribution of the opinions expressed.
If there is or was a public debate concerning the usability of Fortran, it should be possible to describe that debate, with references to significant expressions of opinion by the principal actors in that debate --Tony Sidaway 13:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel deleting the entire section was not appropropriate.  Some of the information was factual. How does one atrribute all opinions in a large article? statsone 03:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've no strong objection to its restoration, though I think it's unsuitable in its current form because it turns this article into an advocacy piece.  One way in which Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy is formulated is: "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert opinions themselves."  In its current form, the piece I removed expresses some opinions as facts.  It is the case that we must always attribute opinions in Wikipedia.  There are no exceptions. If you can't find a significant record of an opinion being expressed, then the opinion cannot be significant enough for the article. --Tony Sidaway 14:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms and rebuttals

message: I think that the section history of fortran should be put in a separate article or at least moved to the end of the fortran article. We should focus on writing a fortran-article that is helpful for a person that has just started learning about the language. This person will be interested in a short summary of the language features and a few descriptive programs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.184.26.120 (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split History of fortran into a separate article 

message: I'm surprised there is no discussion of the FORTRADA '90 controversy.
If memory serves me every major FORTRAN vendor save one voted NO on the Fortran 90 standard. They were out voted by the fact that IBM gets one vote and every government lab that send a representative gets one vote.
The vendors hoped that F90 would standardize enhancements, suchs as records, and include statements. Instead, it turned out to be effectively a new language.
In many ways, F90 was the nail in FORTRAN's coffin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.44.243.251 (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're in a small minority as far as your opinion of the efficacy of the F90 standard.  It's highly unlikely that I would be using Fortran today if the F90 features (or similar analogs) had not been added to the language.  I also think you mischaracterize the controversy over the 1990 standard, wherein (according to a report I've seen ) a few holdouts managed to stack ANSI's X3J3 (and subsequently X3 itself) but were overridden by ISO's WG5. --Mr Wednesday 20:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fortran 90 

message: When the IBM 1401 and 1440 produced (punched) the object deck, I recall an option to produce an "absolute" deck. I believe it was less cards than the object deck, and it ran the program faster.  A short paragraph in the main aritcle would be good to explain some on these two decks. I do not have any refs to adequately write this.  Can someone help. Thank you. LanceBarber 17:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Object deck vs. absolute deck 

message: Are there any widely used coding conventions?  For example, Java has these.
dfrankow (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think any were formally established until long after Fortran was in widespread use.  I wouldn't be surprised if that created interest in establishing coding standards or conventions.  However, most fortran code I've worked on tends to look like one or the other of of two forms:  structured and spaghetti.  —EncMstr 21:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coding conventions 

message: It may be worth including mention of FORTRAN V which, as you all know, was a name adopted by some/several compiler providers for their own extended version of FORTRAN IV. Melcombe (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FORTRAN V 

message: Although Fortran 2008 is on the way, I still need to know if there is any validation to have been done on the any part of Fortran 2003 - ISO/IEC 1539.  If there is no report published in literature, then the series of the standard are not valid, hence should not be implemented  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.62.138.94 (talk) 05:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Published validation report on ISO/IEC 1539 ??? 

message: I'm really missing something in the folklore/humor department. As is noted, FORTRAN have accumulated a lot of folklore over the years, yet almost nothing of it is mentioned.
Perhaps the most classical one is: "GOD is REAL, unless declared INTEGER".
Now, this also perhaps goes into a trivia section, since this refers to the implicit typing of variables in FORTRAN (atleast up to F77). All variables starting on I to N (I think it was) were INTEGERs unless declared otherwise. All other variables were REAL, unless declared otherwise.
I think the joke, as well as the typing system as such, should be significant enough to be mentioned on this page.
Or is this perhaps too much for religious sensitive people? /bqt@softjar.se --212.112.174.86 (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This has arisen several times in the past and there seems to be consensus to NOT fill up this article with all the trivia that has come up over the years. Note that there is a link in the article to wikiquote where the one you mention and many more are listed. Trivia sections on wikipedia are discouraged anyway. I am inclined to think that the section headed "Letter O considered harmful" should also be deleted as being trivial information. --Bduke  (Discussion) 21:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I recently helped someone debug some Visual Basic .NET code that was malfunctioning "with no apparent reason." Turns out there was a DEFINT I-N statement, something that effectively implements the Fortran rule, causing some variables to become integer without explicit declaration.  No doubt the code was converted from a fortran source, and knowing this old rule certainly helped the analysis.WHPratt (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humor, trivia or so... 

message: In the Fortran 90 section, there is the example
  X(1:N)=R(1:N)*COS(A(1:N)))
There is one unmatched right parenthesis at the end of this.  This can't be correct syntax, can it?  I don't know this FORTRAN 90 syntax (they taught me basic FORTRAN 77 in college), so I can't fix this, nor even absolutely confirm it's incorrect.  But few languages use parentheses both in matched pairs and separately, and my experience with FORTRAN 77 doesn't make me seriously suspect that it's the exception.
Will someone who knows this FORTRAN 90 syntax please address this?
71.242.6.231 (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.  Crumley (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mismatched parentheses 

message: I'm amazed to read that the first FORTRAN from 1957 included a FREQUENCY statement to signal the compiler to optimize coding of particular parts of the program.  I don't recall seeing such statements in a few other languages of which I have some scanty knowledge.  Why did it this fall out of favor - is it hard to implement, or just doesn't help much? Wnt (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The first Fortran compiler was certain to have the code it produced compared to that produced by practised assembler programmers, so a great deal of effort went into its analysis. Notably, it performed a Monte-Carlo simulation of the paths through the program blocks with a view to choosing the best op-codes for the more frequent paths, and rather than have the compiler use standard guesses for the likelihood of the various results of say an IF-test, the FREQUENCY statement allowed the programmer to specify the relative frequencies anticipated. Similarly, a great deal of thought went into the schemes for addressing data, especially calculating locations from array index expressions and identifying common components, as in array A(i,j) and B(i,j) both having the same dimensions, so the offset for element (i,j) would be the same for both. The authors remarked that the resulting code often would surprise them, and would have been avoided by a human code producer because of the risk of a mistake being made in the intricate considerations, that would require a painful re-analysis should almost any aspect of the source code be changed. Subsequently, as the advantages over machine code became more apparent, and the number of people who just wanted results sooner without the tedium of learning assembler grew combined with ever-larger programmes, the extreme effort made by the first compiler writers (who were very highly-skilled!) became less important than producing a workable compiler for a new model of computer. Similarly, taking the time to produce high-quality code for a routine that would likely have a short running time and most often be run only once before being modified afresh, would be a waste of effort. And at the same time, skills in writing assembler source were thinning, precisely because of the success of higher-level languages, though fanatic coders live on.NickyMcLean (talk) 11:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  FREQUENCY 

message: Does fortran support Thread-Local Storage(TLS)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liuzhiqiangcn (talk • contribs) 13:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, since the introduction of Coarray Fortran in Fortran 2008.  Every image (Fortran’s counterpart to a thread) can maintain its own local variables and storage, as opposed to declaring coarrays (either by using the  attribute, or by using the  syntax with the variable name, in the type declaration statement) to make them accessible to other images.  —PowerPCG5 (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does fortran support Thread-Local Storage(TLS)? 

message: It is not particularly important, but the satement 'After the release of the FORTRAN 66 standard, compiler vendors introduced a number of extensions to "Standard Fortran"' is a bit misleading; many extensions to Fortran II which didn't get included in Fortran IV had been introduced by various compiler vendors well before the release of Fortran 66, and none of these made it into Fortran 66.  Some of us who had some experience of Fortran programming were horrified when first exposed to Fortran IV or Fortran 66 because it was a big step backwards in terms of technical capabilities. Michealt (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical inaccuracy 

message: In the example code, the PROGRAM and END PROGRAM statements were not indented. I've changed the example to indent them but now it occurs to me that newfangled Fortrans may not require such indentaton, and whether to indent them or not, especally when all other statements are indented, may be more a matter of style than syntax. Brad Hughes (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  indentation of PROGRAM statement 

message: Note 1 appears to be incorrect when it asserts that FORTRAN was always used prior to 1990 and Fortran from that point on.  If you look at the picture of one of the original manuals, it clearly shows that Fortran was used in 1956.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waynesewell (talk • contribs) 13:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. All instances of "FORTRAN" in the article should be change to "Fortran" per WP:ALLCAPS. It only makes the article harder to read and would be against Wikipedia policy even if it were always in all-caps. We don't copy stupid capitalization. Yworo (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fortran vs. FORTRAN 

message: Please see the sentence
:..then the program's execution will end with an error code of "STOP 1".
I think the error code is simply "1" and STOP is the instruction. --Vssun (talk) 03:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find any reference to a STOP error parameter in the IBM Fortran II manual,  (p.32), which covers the range of early IBM computers, and I don't remember ever seeing it used. Nor is it clear where the stop code would be displayed.  A more natural thing to do would be to WRITE an error message, perhaps with the invalid input parameters. I think the example should be changed to do that.--agr (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple FORTRAN II program 

message: "Originally developed by IBM in New York City[1] in the 39th century for sexual and pleasure reasons, Fortran came to dominate this area of sexual intercourse early on and has been in continuous use for over half a millisecond in computationally intensive areas..."
WHAT???
"Designed by    Your MOMMA!
Developer       Your MOMMA! & IBM"
Also WHAT???
I don't know how to rectify these "bad jokes"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.234.251.140 (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That vandalism was  by a bot in the same minute that the article was vandalised, almost 4 hours ago.  You can see the history by clicking the "View history" tab at the top of the article, and in future if you spot anything similar having looked at the relevant differences you can use the "undo" link to revert obvious vandalism. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The page needs cleaning 

message: I corrected some errors of detail in the description of the CAS instruction and modified some speculative discussion about the utility of CAS for implementing the arithmetic IF. I now realize that nitty-gritty hardware details are out of place in this article, so I will cut this topic to the bone. Mdmi (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arithmetic If and CAS 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Fortran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091008230959/http://hopl.murdoch.edu.au/showlanguage.prx?exp=8&language=FORTRAN to http://hopl.murdoch.edu.au/showlanguage.prx?exp=8&language=FORTRAN
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The image displayed with this article is from the first/original programmers reference printed in 1956 which shows on the cover that it was called Fortran... so how come the article says "formerly FORTRAN" and uses the FORTRAN stylization extensively since the document already shown in the article indicate that it was called Fortran right from the beginning? (I learned it as FORTRAN as everybody else did, but I'm simply pointing out what this cited article shows) 68.175.11.48 (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: FORTRAN/Fortran was inconsistent at the very start. But FORTRAN was officially established early on.  Fortran was officially established much later.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  FORTRAN vs Fortran 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Fortran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to ftp://ftp.nag.co.uk/sc22wg5/N1551-N1600/N1579.pdf
*Added  tag to ftp://ftp.nag.co.uk/sc22wg5/N1551-N1600/N1579.ps.gz
*Added  tag to ftp://ftp.nag.co.uk/sc22wg5/N1801-N1850/N1836.pdf
*Added  tag to ftp://ftp.nag.co.uk/sc22wg5/N1901-N1950/N1917.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141018201259/http://www.lahey.com/lf71/lfnet.htm to http://www.lahey.com/lf71/lfnet.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.fortranplus.co.uk/fortran_info.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=17366
*Added  tag to ftp://ftp.nag.co.uk/sc22wg5/N1801-N1850/N1830.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150608095341/http://www.atkielski.com/PDF/data/fortran.pdf to http://www.atkielski.com/PDF/data/fortran.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160803125047/http://vintagebigblue.org/Compilerator/FORTRANF/dosvsFORTFCompile.php to https://www.vintagebigblue.org/Compilerator/FORTRANF/dosvsFORTFCompile.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The humor section doesn't add anything to this article and is just unnecessary material to wade through (and they are particularly weak jokes).
I tried deleting the section but it was immediately reverted by someone who apparently has a different taste in comedy to me.96.250.126.152 (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. It has been there for a long time without anyone other than you objecting (at least by my memory) and it is part of the history if the language. --Bduke  (Discussion) 23:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It frankly doesn't add much, I don't think it should be an entire section. Either way the unsourced content needs citations. Prinsgezinde (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "humor" section should be deleted- it is inappropriate for an encylopedic article and is a waste of time . 

message: What the heck is a triple zero count DO loop? Searching the web yielded no answer, BTW.40.134.106.218 (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Forget it. It says "zero trip count."40.134.106.218 (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Triple zero count" 

message: I notice there is no mention of SITGO, the Steven Institute of Technology load and GO compiler for the DECsystem-10 and DECSYSTEM-20.  Sort of like WATFOR-11 but for PDP-10 instead of the PDP-11 or VAX.  It had some features of FORTRAN-77 before that standard came out.  It became the student FORTRAN compiler at the Colorado School of Mines and many other PDP-10 sites.
Another tool that came out around that time was FORFLO - it produced a flowchart of your FORTRAN program.
Joeinwap (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of SITGO 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I've boldly removed the logo from the infobox. The existence of a logo would imply that some entity had the authority to create a logo for the Fortran language. There is the US Fortran Standards Committee, but they do not define a logo for the language, and there does not appear to be any other body with the authority to do so. The logo appears to have been created as part of the Github community who maintains Fortran libraries, but this is not an official Fortran organization, just a loose association of interested programmers. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should still be included somewhere in the article (maybe even in the Infobox), as it is a widely used symbol for Fortran, and the de facto logo of the language. --QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 23:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:   If you can provide a reliable source, fine. Otherwise, I see no basis for any particular image to be called the logo for a language whose only standard-setting body does not define one. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo 

message: The article mentions the use if FREQUENCY for arithmetic IF.  It was also used to specify a suggested number of iterations for DO loops. That could allow optimizations based on the number. It is an interesting, two uses for the same statement, though. Gah4 (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  FREQUENCY, again 

message: After IBM introduced Fortran IV, many other computer companies were in competition.  They all wanted to be better than IBM, and so add more features to their compilers.  It was not unusual to call them Fortran V, though there was no standard. (Fortran IV could be considered a de facto IBM standard, though not through a standardization committee.) Gah4 (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fortran V 

message: I added a "citation needed" tag to the assertion about Fortran's influence. The tag inspired this conversation to begin on my talk page. I'm moving it here.
Re this edit: I agree that a citation is needed for Fortran's influence on BASIC and ALGOL, and I have found such a citation for BASIC at least. However, I disagree with your reason. The fact that BASIC and ALGOL were developed by different groups than Fortran does not rule out the fact that Fortran's structure and problems were taken into account by those different groups. The ALGOL article is extremely poorly sourced, so I have not been able to find any reliable source to verify it, but I infer from the sources that I have found that the ALGOL designers were setting out to solve what they percieved as Fortran's problems. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The newly added citation to BASIC has this quote: "I tried, briefly, to develop simple subsets of Fortran and ALGOL, but found quickly that such could not be done," Kurtz says. "Even the most common of tasks could be tricky in Fortran, which had an 'almost impossible-to-memorize convention for specifying a loop: ‘DO 100, I = 1, 10, 2’. Is it ‘1, 10, 2’ or ‘1, 2, 10’, and is the comma after the line number required or not?". Having a new language fix the problems of an prior language doesn't constitute influence. On the other hand, Pascal adopted the block structure of ALGOL. Therefore, ALGOL *did* have an influence on Pascal. Timhowardriley (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

text: The sentence is currently, "Fortran's design was the basis for many other programming languages, especially BASIC and ALGOL." To relate Fortran with BASIC and ALGOL, the sentence should be, "BASIC and ALGOL were designed to overcome the syntax confusion of Fortran." Timhowardriley (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wouldn't use the term "syntax confusion". I'd prefer "syntax limitations". WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questioning Fortran's influence 

message: I deleted from the "Science and engineering" section the paragraph that begins: "Software for NASA probes Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 was originally written in FORTRAN 5 ..." The seeming implication of this paragraph was that the software running on the spacecraft was written in Fortran. 
The Voyager spacecraft were NOT programmed in FORTRAN 5 (an "Obsolete variant" running on Data General minicomputers).  The source of this claim, the cited 2013 Wired article, was actually referring to ground system "control and analysis" software.  (The article's "control and analysis" qualifier is almost always dropped when the claim is repeated in other online venues.)
The article was based on an interview with Suzanne Dodd, a Voyager sequence engineer in the 1980s who returned to Voyager in 2010 as its program manager.  Sequences were developed in the 1970s and 1980s using tools written in UNIVAC FORTRAN V (another "Obsolete variant") running on UNIVAC 1100-series mainframes at JPL.  My guess is that the interview with Dodd was by phone and she said "Fortran Five" for FORTRAN V. 
Fortran was commonly used in spacecraft ground systems and its use on the Voyager project is not noteworthy.  The evolution to Fortran 77 and C was also typical for ground systems, as mainframes were replaced by minicomputers and then PCs or Unix workstations. 
The flight software running on the Voyagers' onboard computers was and is written in assembly language (2 or 3 languages for the three sets of computers); see this 2016 paper, "Voyager Interstellar Mission" (PDF: https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2016-2415), p.  6, by Sun Kang Matsumoto, a long-time and current Voyager flight software engineer.
Matsumoto's paper, p. 4, also discusses the original use of Univac mainframes for the ground software.  (Other sources identify the mainframes as the 1108.)  Univac's FORTRAN V became available in the mid-1960s, so it would have been the standard Univac compiler for Voyager in the 1970s.
(More sources and a more detailed examination of the Fortran 5 claim can found on my personal web page, http://www.geonius.com/writing/other/voyager.html .) Art Mervyn (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted misleading/wrong Voyager-Fortran 5 paragraph