Xref: utzoo comp.lang.fortran:4281 comp.lang.c:34507 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-picayune.mit.edu!news From: scs@adam.mit.edu (Steve Summit) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Fortran vs. C for numerical work Message-ID: <1990Dec5.015254.18181@athena.mit.edu> Date: 5 Dec 90 01:52:54 GMT References: Sender: news@athena.mit.edu (News system) Reply-To: scs@adam.mit.edu Organization: MIT Lines: 25 Are you all still arguing about C and Fortran? The discussion has gone from responding to a few inappropriate criticisms of C (which was reasonable) to trying to downplay examples in which Fortran might well be superior (which is silly) to discussing multiplication vs. memory access time (which belongs in comp.arch, if anywhere). In article <1990Dec4.011220.9302@ccu.umanitoba.ca> salomon@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Dan Salomon) writes: >In article <1990Dec1.232408.13365@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >>Code maintenance is still better done on the Fortran. > >If you have to maintain the numerical libraries in FORTRAN, then you >cannot really say that you are doing your numerical work in C. Henry isn't saying you should do your numerical work in C, nor am I. If your data structures are (as has recently been asserted) all arrays, and you don't mind a few of Fortran's other weaknesses, use it in good health. C is better than a lot of people think it is at numerical work, but it certainly isn't perfect, and C apologists don't need to get up in arms when someone proposes an example which Fortran can probably handle better. Numerical work has never been C's claim to fame, anyway. Steve Summit scs@adam.mit.edu Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com