# Recursive Data Structures in Fortran

**URL:** <https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/recursive-data-structures-in-fortran/1578>\
**Category:** Tutorials\
**Created:** [July 22, 2021, 7:54pm UTC](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/recursive-data-structures-in-fortran/1578 "2021-07-22T19:54:39Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 16

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![FortranFan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/96bed5/32.png) [@FortranFan](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/u/FortranFan)\
**Post date:** [July 25, 2021, 5:33pm UTC](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/recursive-data-structures-in-fortran/1578/16 "2021-07-25T17:33:32Z")

</div>

> [@Beliavsky](#):
>
> … That is needlessly conservative IMO, but waiting for at least 2 compilers to implement a feature before you use it in production is reasonable, especially if the feature’s benefit is marginal.

“waiting for at least 2 compilers to implement a feature” is “needlessly conservative”, IMO. Especially on Windows OS where 100x or more billions of $$ of work is done where there is only one compiler.

Separately if you base matters on `gfortran`, that essentially places you in the position of sticking to some arbitrary **keystone** and circling around it, whatever that be. For the comp.lang.fortran thread, that **keystone** was `FORTRAN 77` plus that OP’s pet features. But you can pick your own “poison”, Fortran 95 or whatever. Otherwise with anything else, you can’t go with a “tickmark” in any compiler support list (ACM Fortran or [FortranPlus.co.uk](http://FortranPlus.co.uk) or whatever) and run with it. Like in this [**comment**](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/fortran-compiler-testing-framework/1573/6) of yours, you will soon be “fed up with … compilers that claim support for a feature, but have a half-assed implementation that only works for simple usage and fails badly for more complex usage”

The bottom-line is the comp.lang.fortran post I linked starts with “ **a constant series of problems** ” and that’s otherwise the constant world of Fortran.

A far more preferable approach, I firmly believe, is to forge ahead with the standard and making the processor implementations to **follow** ; the processor shown upthread with the Fibonacci sequence example has been really good at it of late, supporting all of current standard (bugs notwithstanding for which they constantly face a barrage of support requests from me which they gamely fix rather quickly too). Employing that processor for “good” advertisement of Fortran is all that makes sense now.

---

_[View the full topic](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/recursive-data-structures-in-fortran/1578)._