Xref: utzoo comp.lang.fortran:4314 comp.lang.c:34570
Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tdatirv!sarima
From: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Fortran vs. C for numerical work (SUMMARY)
Message-ID: <72@tdatirv.UUCP>
Date: 5 Dec 90 18:11:32 GMT
References: <9458:Nov2721:51:5590@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <17680:Nov2806:04:1090@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <7200@lanl.gov> <2392:Nov2902:59:0590@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Reply-To: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Followup-To: comp.lang.fortran
Organization: Teradata Corp., Irvine
Lines: 21

In article <2392:Nov2902:59:0590@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
>In article <7200@lanl.gov> ttw@lanl.gov (Tony Warnock) writes:
>> There is also no storage overhead
>>     associated with keeping arrays of pointers. For multi-dimensional
>>     problems, this overhead could be quite large.
 
>... That's true, but
>it's really not a problem. If you have a 5 by 5 by 2 by 3 by 15 array,
>can you begrudge space for thirty pointers so that you save 5% of your pointers

Except for one thing. In scientific computation typical dimensions would be
more like 1000 by 1000 by 1000 by 1000 by 50, which requires a great deal more
than a mere thirty pointers.  [In biological work it may be even larger, though
in that case there are usually fewer dimensions]

Really, I have done some *small* studies with hundreds of rows/columns.
[In fact my data set was so small that I failed to produce usable results,
I actually needed something like 5 times as many 'rows'].
-- 
---------------
uunet!tdatirv!sarima				(Stanley Friesen)