Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!herald.usask.ca!alberta!aunro!ukma!rex!spool.mu.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!rutgers!cbmvax!cbmehq!cbmger!peterk From: peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: Language Wars Message-ID: <1258@cbmger.UUCP> Date: 31 May 91 07:55:35 GMT References: <14750@ucrmath.ucr.edu> <8_4Ha8!f@cs.psu.edu> <1991May28.173812.4183@colorado.edu> Reply-To: peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) Organization: Commodore Bueromaschinen GmbH, West Germany Lines: 21 In article <1991May28.173812.4183@colorado.edu> judd@wilkinson.Colorado.EDU (Xenu Galactic-Conqueror) writes: > >. Fortran is designed for high-powered scientific applications. >Get on a Cray sometime - You are vain and silly if you intend to >use any other language for that purpose. Please, can you tell me, what on earth in Fortran is "designed for high-powered scientific applications"? I don't see any evidence for this (you know, I also had to program Fortran back at university.) The only reason to still use Fortran is, in my eyes, the existence of great software packages, including subroutine libraries, that are specialized for this area and have evolved for decades into really bullet-proof and usable good stuff. With them, you don't have to re-invent the wheel all the time. But still I wonder that it should be possible to translate all this stuff into something more modern, like Modula (or C), without losing any feature, but gaining much from the more modern structures of these languages. -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk