Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!hpcc05!hpcuhb!hpcllla!hpcllmv!jbc
From: jbc@hpcllmv.HP.COM (Jeff Caldwell)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Fortran -vs- C (yet again)
Message-ID: <1270009@hpcllmv.HP.COM>
Date: 24 Nov 90 10:07:49 GMT
References: <1990Nov24.002836.19739@ariel.unm.edu>
Organization: Hewlett Packard Calif. Language Lab
Lines: 30

>Instead of C programmers defending C against
>Fortran, I would be curious to hear a discussion of what C has
>that is so lacking in Fortan, from the perspective
>of the scientific programmer, not the computer scientist.  

Hmm...  I can't really argue for the merits of C when you're limiting
the conversation to scientific programming.  I wouldn't really want
to use C to create a heavy duty large number crunching application.
Fortran would likely be better. 

I work at Hewlett Packard and currently write/maintain/enhance both the 
Fortran and C compilers for 4 different platforms (different machine types).
I feel C is a much better language for sophisticated datatype/structure 
manipulation.  It's ease of use of pointers and structures is unmatched
by even the most robust implementations of Fortran.  Fortran, on the other
hand, allows you to do terribly perverse things to memory with the use of
COMMON blocks and EQUIVALENCEs.  You can't even begin to do some of the
data overlapping and data disection in C that Fortran enables you to do.

The defined support for COMPLEX datatypes is a good example of why Fortran
is far superior for numerical applications.

Of course, I haven't mentioned anything that is news to anyone.  I guess
the fact that I wouldn't want to write anything larger that a couple of
hundred lines in Fortran but don't mind writing large applications in C
says something for C.

		Jeff Caldwell | HP California Language Lab

P.S. Both the Fortran and C compilers are written in C :-)