Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dali!milton!oregon!hodges
From: HODGES@oregon.uoregon.edu (Steve Hodges, Physics, UNIV. of OR)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re:THINK FORTRAN?  Is there a better idea?
Message-ID: <18763@oregon.uoregon.edu>
Date: 9 Apr 90 04:00:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Oregon
Lines: 17

{
	I Un two recent postings, K Dobbs asks whether a
Think FORTRAN is in the works.  Does anyone know?  I also
would welcome such a package.
	Does C or any other language allow Extende, Complex
numerical simulations as straight-forwardly as FORTRAN=77?
What if the code must ultimately be vectorized for a super?
	Presently I am using Language Systems MPW/FORTRAN
for number crunching and MPW/C for instrument interfacing
(data aquisition).  I am very happy with the support and software 
provided by Language Systems.  I am not thrilled with SADE.
Hence my interest in THINK FORTRAN!
	Wisdom from more experienced programmers will be 
relished!
			St~reve Hodges

			OPTO ERGO SUM