Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!ubc-cs!alberta!oha!tony From: tony@oha.UUCP (Tony Olekshy) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Fortran vs. C for numerical work Message-ID: <460@oha.UUCP> Date: 8 Dec 90 00:18:27 GMT References: <16671@csli.Stanford.EDU> <1990Dec5.022302.25764@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> <16725@csli.Stanford.EDU> <1990Dec5.185852.5191@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> Organization: Olekshy Hoover & Associates Ltd., Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Lines: 19 In-Reply-To: Message dated 6 Dec 90 15:30:33 GMT In message , peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > [...] but right now we're really just in a holding > pattern waiting for the object oriented programming wars to get over and > done with... and praying C++ doesn't win. I agree with Peter here. Since C is the language so much system software is written in C, C tends to be the first stable language on a machine. Therefore, to beat competitors to market, you get an edge if you can build everything your application needs with nothing more than the compiler and your C source. I too am waiting for a replacement, perhaps something will come of the Eiffel consortium. I may even consider C++ for some processes, if they seem to be a natural fit. But if C's shortcommings are the problem, C++ is not the answer. -- Yours etc., Tony Olekshy. Internet: tony%oha@CS.UAlberta.CA BITNET: tony%oha.uucp@UALTAMTS.BITNET uucp: alberta!oha!tony I am afraid humility to a genius is as an extinguisher to a candle.--Shenstone