Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dartvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!dartvax!alexc
From: alexc@dartvax.UUCP (Alex Colvin)
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: C for physicists
Message-ID: <1929@dartvax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 25-Jun-84 18:14:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: dartvax.1929
Posted: Mon Jun 25 18:14:59 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Jun-84 03:15:20 EDT
Organization: Dartmouth College
Lines: 35

There's been a lot of loose talk here about the demerits of Fortran and
the merits of C.  Thosae who've already grown tired of this subject are
encouraged to type whatever it is that gets them to the next article.

As far as I can see, the original point here is that UN*X has a terrible
implementation of Fortran.  I don't think anyone refuted this.  All they
came up with was the counter that C is what you should be using on UN*X.
I'd have to agree.  UN*X doesn't seem to support any other language as well.
Those who need Fortran, who have large Fortran applications, probably 
shouldn't be using UN*X.

The C proponents have pointed out a number of failings in Fortran.  The
control structures of C are a little more sophisticated than those of Fortran.
I don't know whether F77 allows you to pass functions around, implementing
yr own control structures.  It doesn't usually allow or encourage recursion.
Etc. etc.

On the other hand, the C fans I know seem pretty blind to their favorite
lingo's failings.  C, for example, doesn't really implement arrays.  Just
pointer arithmetic.  I admit that the latter is useful, but think about
trying to add array bounds checking to a C program.  It's not unusual to
have this feature available for Fortran.

Then there is the C expression syntax.  15 levels of operator precedence.
Some associate left, others right. 9 kinds of prefix operator.  33 infix.
Two enfix, and the ?:.

In APL at least, with its half a hundred operators, they decided that no one
could be expected to remember the precedence, so there's a simple rule
(broken only for functionals!).

Consider also (4)*3.  Now (int)*ptr.  How about (A)*B?

			... Just tired of C
			    A. Colvin