Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!unmvax!ariel.unm.edu!ghostwheel.unm.edu!john
From: john@ghostwheel.unm.edu (John Prentice)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Fortran -vs- C (yet again)
Message-ID: <1990Nov29.051609.19362@ariel.unm.edu>
Date: 29 Nov 90 05:16:09 GMT
References: <1990Nov24.002836.19739@ariel.unm.edu> <1270009@hpcllmv.HP.COM> <771@sarnoff.sarnoff.com>
Sender: news@ariel.unm.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM
Lines: 19

In article <771@sarnoff.sarnoff.com> hht@sarnoff.sarnoff.com (Herbert H. Taylor   x2733) writes:
>
>I would like to see this discussion move from "IS Fortran or C better"
>to "WILL Fortran or C BE better" in the future on emerging new
>architectures, particularly the massively paralel ones - both MIMD and
>SIMD. How do the efforts to respresent parallelism in C compare to
>those expressed by Fortran90? 

I will make the statement I made several times earlier during this debate.
Neither Fortran nor C represent parallelism very well.  Neither language
was written with a modern parallel architecture in mind and I don't see
that either is really very suitable.  We need a new language
for numerical parallel calculations. Particularly since I think there is 
little doubt that parallelism is going to be the the way scientists work in the 
future (at least at the cutting edge of scientific computing).

John Prentice
Amparo Corporation
Albuquerque, NM