Xref: utzoo comp.lang.fortran:4123 comp.lang.c:34201
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uflorida!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Highly Optimizable Subset of C (was: Fortran vs. C for numerical work)
Message-ID: <14568@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 24 Nov 90 23:00:02 GMT
References: <1990Nov22.051446.1871@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1990Nov23.181209.26366@zoo.toronto.edu> <1990Nov24.201731.3442@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Followup-To: comp.lang.fortran
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 9

In article <1990Nov24.201731.3442@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> shenkin@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Peter S. Shenkin) writes:
>... the above observations would seem to imply that if the programmer
>simply restricts him/herself to a Fortran-like "highly optimizable subset"
>of C, then he/she can expect Fortran-like performance out of any reasonably
>good C compiler.

It doesn't matter whether that is true or not; such crippled programming
would negate much of the advantage of using C in the first place.  Use
the right tool for the job and stop worrying about code optimization!