Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!goanna!ok
From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Languages for numerical programming (was Fortran etc.)
Message-ID: <4473@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au>
Date: 10 Dec 90 07:42:17 GMT
References: <13457@chaph.usc.edu> <8960031@hpfcso.HP.COM> <1990Dec7.215050.5689@ariel.unm.edu>
Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia
Lines: 17

In article <1990Dec7.215050.5689@ariel.unm.edu>, john@ghostwheel.unm.edu (John Prentice) writes:
> However, one of the major advantages of Fortran is
> its standardization and portability, something that I expect APL is
> lacking in.

There is an APL standard.  There is a "transfer" standard for APL
workspaces.  APL exists for PCs, Macs, /370s, others; check APL Quote Quad
and comp.lang.apl.  Put it this way, with APL around, calling Fortran a
"formula translator" and saying how natural it is is a sick joke.  (Oh
yes, modern APL includes complex.)

For numerical stuff, "design or develop in APL, recode in Fortran" makes
a lot of sense.

-- 
The Marxists have merely _interpreted_ Marxism in various ways;
the point, however, is to _change_ it.		-- R. Hochhuth.