Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!lanl!jlg From: jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Fortran vs. C for numerical work Message-ID: <8327@lanl.gov> Date: 8 Dec 90 23:10:06 GMT References: Organization: Los Alamos Natl Lab, Los Alamos, N.M. Lines: 20 From article , by mathew@mantis.UUCP (mathew): > [...] > If you already know FORTRAN, it probably isn't a big deal to use it for > scientific computing. If you don't, why bother learning it at all? I remain > to be convinced that there's anything you can do in FORTRAN that you can't > do with more grace in a different language. I tend to agree. If such a different language were widely available, I would recommend using it. But, LISP is too slow (so far) and requires a different mind-set to use effectively (so: more retraining costs). And other rich languages for numerical programming (like Ada) are not widely available yet (and unproven - Ada has a reputation of being too large and complex - although this reputation mostly derives from comments by people who have no direct experience with Ada). But, your comment doesn't have anything to do with the Fortran vs. C debate. In fact it applies with even more force to C. I am not convinced that there's anything you can do with C gracefully. J. Giles