Xref: utzoo comp.lang.fortran:4110 comp.lang.c:34142 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!ariel.unm.edu!ghostwheel.unm.edu!john From: john@ghostwheel.unm.edu (John Prentice) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Fortran vs. C for numerical work Message-ID: <1990Nov22.161331.21983@ariel.unm.edu> Date: 22 Nov 90 16:13:31 GMT References: <1990Nov22.051446.1871@ccu.umanitoba.ca> Sender: news@ariel.unm.edu (USENET News System) Organization: University of New Mexico Math Dept., Albuquerque, NM Lines: 21 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: > > 1) C allows recursive functions, whereas portable FORTRAN doesn't. > Recursive functions can often solve a problem more clearly > than iterative methods, even if they are usually less efficient. > > 2) FORTRAN has no dynamic array allocation. Although C has dynamically > allocated arrays, they are not trivial to describe or allocate. >-- > It should be mentioned however, that the proposed Fortran 90 standard does have allocatable arrays and most current generation Fortran compilers already either allow for this or can be trivially linked to C to do it. There are also recursive Fortran compilers available now and (if I remember right) this is a feature of Fortran 90, should we live so long as to actually see the standard adopted. John Prentice Amparo Corporation