Xref: utzoo comp.lang.fortran:4265 comp.lang.c:34473 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!samsung!uunet!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: <1990Dec4.011220.9302@ccu.umanitoba.ca> Date: 4 Dec 90 01:12:20 GMT References: <1990Nov21.220816.15220@rice.edu> <2173@tuvie> <9458:Nov2721:51:5590@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1990Nov30.183032.5420@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1990Dec1.232408.13365@zoo.toronto.edu> Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada Lines: 12 In article <1990Dec1.232408.13365@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > ... In one sense, f2c really ought to be cc2fc -- its primary >mission is to be a pre-pass to turn a C compiler into a Fortran compiler. >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. -- Dan Salomon -- salomon@ccu.UManitoba.CA Dept. of Computer Science / University of Manitoba Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2 / (204) 275-6682 Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com