Xref: utzoo comp.lang.fortran:4226 comp.lang.c:34400 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!salomon From: salomon@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Dan Salomon) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Fortran vs. C for numerical work (SUMMARY) Message-ID: <1990Nov30.183032.5420@ccu.umanitoba.ca> Date: 30 Nov 90 18:30:32 GMT References: <1990Nov21.220816.15220@rice.edu> <2173@tuvie> <9458:Nov2721:51:5590@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada Lines: 23 In article <9458:Nov2721:51:5590@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: > >> 5. There are many numerical libraries written for Fortran. > >Which, given f2c, is no longer an issue. Does f2c handle conformant arrays properly? If so, is the code that it generates maintainable? I remember once trying to translate a FORTRAN fast-fourier analysis procedure into PL/I. Sounds like a piece of cake, right? The problem was that the FORTRAN procedure accepted arrays with not only any size of dimensions, but also with any number of dimensions. I devised a way of doing it, but my method crashed the version of the PL/I compiler that IBM was distributing at the time (circa 1972), got stuck in the operating system, and the O/S had to be brought down by the operators to get it deleted. -- Dan Salomon -- salomon@ccu.UManitoba.CA Dept. of Computer Science / University of Manitoba Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2 / (204) 275-6682