Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC840302); site boring.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!mcvax!boring!jack
From: jack@boring.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: Re: What language do you use for scientific programming?
Message-ID: <6618@boring.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 6-Sep-85 13:16:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: boring.6618
Posted: Fri Sep  6 13:16:20 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 10-Sep-85 20:27:06 EDT
References: <909@oddjob.UUCP> <64500002@hpislb.UUCP> <630@mmintl.UUCP> <29418@apple.UUCP>
Reply-To: jack@boring.UUCP (Jack Jansen)
Organization: AMOEBA project, CWI, Amsterdam
Lines: 20
Apparently-To: rnews@mcvax.LOCAL


Well, since everybody has defended their favorite language for
scientific programming already, I might as well throw in my .001 cents
worth.

I do all my sciemtific programming in assembler.
It has numerous advantages:
- Executes fast
- Possible to use every data structure you can imagine (for instance,
  I can implement 2d arrays as matrices in one place, and with
  dope vectors in another, in the same program).
- Very tight control over your code, so you never hit things
  like 'the funny way this compiler handles floating point rounding'.
- Not having to use stacks, jump subroutines, and all those nifty
  (but *expensive*) features you are forced to use in a hll.

And I could probably go on for hours.....
-- 
	Jack Jansen, jack@mcvax.UUCP
	The shell is my oyster.