Xref: utzoo comp.lang.fortran:4118 comp.lang.c:34165
Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!uflorida!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Fortran vs. C for numerical work
Message-ID: <14559@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 23 Nov 90 17:15:42 GMT
References: <BGLENDEN.90Nov21003342@mandrill.cv.nrao.edu> <1990Nov22.051446.1871@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Followup-To: comp.lang.fortran
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 9

In article <1990Nov22.051446.1871@ccu.umanitoba.ca> salomon@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Dan Salomon) writes:
>The reasons that C should replace FORTRAN for numerical work:

3)  C has decent support for nontrivial data structures, while they are
sufficiently painful to emulate in Fortran that few Fortran programmers
even try.

Most really interesting algorithms are associated with interesting data
structures.