Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!ubc-cs!alberta!mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA!Al_Dunbar
From: userAKDU@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (Al Dunbar)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Fortran vs. C for numerical work
Message-ID: <1995@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA>
Date: 8 Dec 90 18:51:44 GMT
References: <671.275e3c4a@venus.ycc.yale.edu>
Organization: MTS Univ of Alberta
Lines: 32

In article <671.275e3c4a@venus.ycc.yale.edu>, tang@venus.ycc.yale.edu writes:
>Marc Roussel writes
<<<deletions>>>
>
>However, since languages are part of CS, and if there were enough CSists
>around to convince people who have not made up their mind yet, we might
>see a demise of Fortran.
>
>There is a growing trend towards using more elaborate data structures.
>For example, discrete-particle simulations are frequently used in numerical
>statistical mechanical systems, evolution of solid structures under random
>growth environment (diffusion is really a random process).  In just these
>two cases, sorting, and random access of elements are the likely to be the
>most time-consumming tasks, Fortran may not be the appropriate language
>(correct me if I am wrong).
 
You *are* wrong, but you will have to correct yourself :-)
 
>
>IMHO, these capabilities should be added to the
>language (Fortran 90 may have them, I do not know much about F90) so that
>there is no need to switch to a different language
 
Generalized data structures *are* in Fortran 90. In addition,
Fortran will continue to have more primary data types than
C (i.e. logical and complex).
 
-------------------+-------------------------------------------
Al Dunbar          |
Edmonton, Alberta  |  "this mind left intentionally blank"
CANADA             |          - Manuel Writer
-------------------+-------------------------------------------