Xref: utzoo comp.lang.fortran:4137 comp.lang.c:34222 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!emory!gatech!prism!gt4512c From: gt4512c@prism.gatech.EDU (BRADBERRY,JOHN L) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Fortran vs. C for numerical work Message-ID: <17529@hydra.gatech.EDU> Date: 26 Nov 90 10:28:27 GMT References: <1990Nov22.051446.1871@ccu.umanitoba.ca> Followup-To: comp.lang.fortran Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology Lines: 34 On Nov 25 18:55:29 EST 1990 in Article <34828> , (Dan Salomon) writes: >Here are the reasons that FORTRAN has not been replaced by C: > > 1) C is definitely for wizards, not beginners or casual > programmers. > Usually people who are heavily into numerical work are not > hacker > types. They are mathematicians, scientists, or engineers. I agree! The group described happens to represent most of the clients I deal with in Radar and Antenna applications. As in the original derivation of the name, these people are FOR-mula TRAN- slators! > >..(text deleted)... > >The reasons that C should replace FORTRAN for numerical work: > >..(text deleted)... > 3) FORTRAN ANSI standards take entirely too long to pass through committees and there is little or no effort made to 'purge' old style Watfor/V methods from 'current' teaching texts! I wouldn't be surprised to see references to 'card decks' in 'current' FORTRAN books into the year 3000 (programmers live forever!)... Sorry about the digression! -- John L. Bradberry |Georgia Tech Research Inst|uucp:..!prism!gt4512c Scientific Concepts Inc. |Microwaves and Antenna Lab|Int : gt4512c@prism 2359 Windy Hill Rd. 201-J|404 528-5325 (GTRI) |GTRI:jbrad@msd.gatech. Marietta, Ga. 30067 |404 438-4181 (SCI) |'...is this thing on..?'