Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!pikes!aspen.craycos.com!jrbd
From: jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Fortran vs. C for numerical work (SUMMARY)
Message-ID: <1990Nov30.154253.13827@craycos.com>
Date: 30 Nov 90 15:42:53 GMT
References: <7097@lanl.gov> <17680:Nov2806:04:1090@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <7928@uwm.edu>
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation
Lines: 17

In article <7928@uwm.edu> tong@convex.csd.uwm.edu (Shuk Y Tong) writes:

 (C is inefficient and clumsy for numerical computation)

>The only possibe candidate of the languages that can replace
>Fortran is C++ ( I doubt that too ), but not C, because C itself
>will be dead when a true C++ compiler is written.

Up to this point I substantially agreed with all of your points (in
particular, the array-of-pointers representation of 2D arrays only
allows vector operations along one dimension).

However, I think that it will take far more than C++ to kill off C at
this point.  Consider the tenacity of Fortran and Cobol in the
face of a decades-long wave of new languages...C has joined the inner
circle of languages that get widespread, extensive use, and thus is
probably as immortal as the other two languages now...


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com