Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!ariel.unm.edu!news
From: john@ghostwheel.unm.edu (John Prentice)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Enough of Fortran/C/f2c
Message-ID: <1990Nov26.054119.19890@ariel.unm.edu>
Date: 26 Nov 90 05:41:19 GMT
Sender: news@ariel.unm.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: University of New Mexico Math Dept., Albuquerque, NM
Lines: 23

Regarding my posting considering f2c, let me follow up before
I get a thousand mail messages sent to me.  Several people
have tried the C version of the code on their systems and are
having no problems.  So, as I suggested might be the case, I
must be making a dumb mistake.

Also, I wish to correct any misconceptions left by my message that
I regarded the converted C code as poor.  I would not expect f2c
to produce the cleanest C code possible.  However, I still don't
think you can write a C version of the Fortran root program that
is as simple and clear as the Fortran version was.  That was really
the point I was going for but poorly stated.

I am about spent out arguing the virtues of Fortran versus C for
numerical work.  I will continue to use Fortran for a variety of
reasons until someone with significant experience in large scale
scientific computing gives me a very, very good reason to change.
So far nobody has done that.

I appreciate all the responses I got and the time and care people
took in sending them.

John Prentice