Xref: utzoo comp.lang.misc:6231 alt.flame:25865
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!udel!haven!adm!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Fortran vs. C for numerical work
Message-ID: <6015:Dec618:34:3490@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 6 Dec 90 18:34:34 GMT
References: <763@ubbpc.UUCP> <26349:Dec404:38:5790@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1990Dec6.144950.13182@ccs.carleton.ca>
Organization: IR
Lines: 18

In article <1990Dec6.144950.13182@ccs.carleton.ca> greg@sce.carleton.ca (Greg Franks) writes:
> In article <26349:Dec404:38:5790@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
> :-( Flame on the fortran flame wars :-(
> first he tries to tell fortran programmers to convert to C (r
> "read the output of f2c for 5 minutes a day" then says...

No, I didn't. I pointed out that a Fortran programmer who wanted to
learn C the easy way could take advantage of f2c. Notice the adjective
phrase beginning ``who.''

First Jim ignores ``packed'' in ``packed array trie.'' Then someone else
ignores ``like C'' in ``Fortran does not have separate compilation like
C.'' Then a dozen people ignore ``per byte'' and ``for sorting numbers''
in the sorting discussion. Now Greg can't read ``who wants to learn C''
after ``Fortran programmer.'' I know Mark Twain didn't think much of
adjectives, but this is getting a little ridiculous.

---Dan


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com